The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >The People of the State of New York v. Gary Cheatham
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

The People of the State of New York v. Gary Cheatham

0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed September 25, 2009, which, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, upon a plea of guilty, imposed a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on April 10, 2002.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

In 2002, upon the defendant’s conviction of robbery in the first degree, the Supreme Court imposed a determinate prison term of 10 years. At that time, however, the Supreme Court failed to impose the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision (see Penal Law § 70.45 [1], [2]). Thereafter, on September 25, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of Correction Law § 601-d, the defendant appeared before the Supreme Court for resentencing, at which time the Supreme Court reimposed the original 10-year determinate term and added a five-year period of postrelease supervision.

The defendant had not yet been released from incarceration *972on the original sentence at the time of his resentencing. Accordingly, the resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process (see People v Ware, 78 AD3d 743, 744 [2010]; People v Pruitt, 74 AD3d 1366 [2010]; People v Tillman, 74 AD3d 1251 [2010]; People v Mendez, 73 AD3d 951 [2010]; People v Murrell, 73 AD3d 598, 599 [2010], lv granted 15 NY3d 854 [2010]; People v Parisi, 72 AD3d 989 [2010], lv granted 15 NY3d 776 [2010]; cf. People v Williams, 14 NY3d 198 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap