Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. On July 1, 2003, he was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years on the conviction of assault in the first degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 21/3; to 7 years on the conviction of aggravated criminal contempt, and a determinate term of imprisonment of one year on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. However, the Supreme Court did not impose the statutorily required period of post-release supervision. On September 17, 2009, the defendant was brought before the Supreme Court for resentencing so the mandatory period of postrelease supervision could be imposed ( see Penal Law § 70.45; Correction Law § 601-d).
Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally-imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, 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 of law ( see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621).
A court to which a matter has been remitted for resentencing solely for the purpose of imposing a required term of postrelease supervision does not have the authority to consider whether to reduce the defendant's sentence as a whole ( id.).