Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 4 courts 2008–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sparbergreen2 sentences2017To address Catu and this Court's cases following it,1 the legislature enacted an exception to the PRS requirement 1 In People v Sparber ( 10 NY3d 457, 469-470 [2008]), the Court held that, if a defendant had been informed of PRS during the plea colloquy but it had not been pronounced at sentencing, "the - 2 - - 3 - No. 112 in Penal Law § 70.85. 2010Since People v Sparber ( 10 NY3d 457 [2008]) was decided while Echevarria was in custody for a PRS violation, DOCS notified the sentencing court that Echevarria should be resentenced. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Robert Banks, Jaime Gomez, Thomas Marmolejas, Danny Mercedes, Andres Peralta, and Diego Mojica, Johnny Martinezgreen1 sentence2009Bearam v United States, 552 US —, 128 S Ct 1066 [2008], quoting United States v Banks, 464 F3d 184, 190 [2006], cert denied 552 US — 128 S Ct 332 [2007]; see United States v A.B., 529 F3d 1275, 1288 [2008], cert denied 555 US —, 129 S Ct 440 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Johnny Carter, Micheal Bearamgreen1 sentence2009The defendant has not pointed to any “ ‘contrary indications’ ” in the record that would overcome the presumption that the court was aware of the PRS requirement when it sentenced the defendant in 2000 (United States v Carter, 489 F3d 528, 541 [2007], cert denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. A.B.green1 sentence2009Bearam v United States, 552 US —, 128 S Ct 1066 [2008], quoting United States v Banks, 464 F3d 184, 190 [2006], cert denied 552 US — 128 S Ct 332 [2007]; see United States v A.B., 529 F3d 1275, 1288 [2008], cert denied 555 US —, 129 S Ct 440 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Catugreen2 sentences2008As the Court of Appeals stated in Garner (at 362-363): “PRS represents a significant punishment component that restricts an individual’s liberty” (citing People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]). 2008As the Court of Appeals stated in Garner (at 362-363): “PRS represents a significant punishment component that restricts an individual’s liberty” (citing People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stromangreen1 sentence2008The sole remedy for a procedural error such as this is to vacate the sentence and remit for a resentencing hearing so that the trial judge can make the required pronouncement ( see People v Sturgis, 69 NY2d 816, 818 [1987] ["(A) sentence (that) violates the mandate of CPL 380.20 . . . must be vacated and the case remitted to the trial court for resentencing"]; see also People v Stroman, 36 NY2d 939, 940 [1975] [violation of CPL 380.40 requires reversal and remitter for resentencing]). [7] *472 In all five of these cases, there exists no procedural bar to allowing the sentencing court to correc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sturgisgreen1 sentence2008The sole remedy for a procedural error such as this is to vacate the sentence and remit for a resentencing hearing so that the trial judge can make the required pronouncement ( see People v Sturgis, 69 NY2d 816, 818 [1987] ["(A) sentence (that) violates the mandate of CPL 380.20 . . . must be vacated and the case remitted to the trial court for resentencing"]; see also People v Stroman, 36 NY2d 939, 940 [1975] [violation of CPL 380.40 requires reversal and remitter for resentencing]). [7] *472 In all five of these cases, there exists no procedural bar to allowing the sentencing court to correc | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garner v. CORRECTIONAL SERVS.
green
2 sentences2009In a subsequent June 25, 2008 order Justice Kron noted that the Division of Parole had informed the court in writing that there may be a question of the lawfulness of defendant’s non-PRS sentence in light of the recent Court of Appeals decisions in Matter of Garner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. ( 10 NY3d 358 [2008]) and People v Sparber ( 10 NY3d 457 [2008]). 2008Since that time, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued the decision in Matter of Garner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. ( 10 NY3d 358 [2008]). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
People v. Collado
green
1 sentence2009The orders in each of the five cases reviewed on appeal in Sparber were therefore modified to the extent of remitting the cases to the Supreme Court for resentencing (see also People v Collado, 11 NY3d 888 [2008]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People ex rel. Benton v. Warden
green
2 sentences2009The Benton court further found that the convicted person could not be punished for violation of the terms of PRS, even though a judge resentenced him and imposed PRS nunc pro tunc after he was charged with the PRS violation ( 20 Misc 3d at 521 ). 2009The Benton court further found that the convicted person could not be punished for violation of the terms of PRS, even though a judge resentenced him and imposed PRS nunc pro tunc after he was charged with the PRS violation ( 20 Misc 3d at 521 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.