Julie Cianca, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. Dubrin of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Martin P. McCarthy, II, of Counsel), for Respondent. Appeal from a resentence of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered October 22, 2019. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted in 2002 upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [former (4)]), and County Court failed to impose a period of postrelease supervision (PRS) with respect to those counts as required by Penal Law § 70.45 (1). Defendant contends that, because he had served more than 17 years of his original 25-year sentence of imprisonment, the sentencing court violated his constitutional rights against double jeopardy and to due process by resentencing him pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d and pronouncing the relevant period of PRS. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contentions do not require preservation (cf. People v. Woods, 122 AD3d 1400, 1401 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1210 [2015]; People v. Smikle, 112 AD3d 1357, 1358 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1141 [2014]; see generally People v. Williams, 14 NY3d 198, 220-221 [2010], cert denied 562 US 947 [2010]), we nevertheless conclude that they lack merit. Inasmuch as defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, ” ‘his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy or due process clauses of the United States Constitution’ ” (People v. Drake, 126 AD3d 1382, 1383 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1144 [2016]; see People v. Lingle, 16 NY3d 621, 630-633 [2011]; People v. Fox, 104 AD3d 789, 789-790 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 943 [2013]; cf. Williams, 14 NY3d at 217). Defendant’s reliance on cases rejected by the Court of Appeals in Lingle is misplaced (see Lingle, 16 NY3d at 632).
