The People v. John Lingle; The People v. John Parisi; The People v. Dominque Murrell; The People v. John Prendergast; The People v. Manual Rodriquez ;The People v. Darryl SharlowAnnotate this Case
Defendants, six individuals, sought relief upon resentencing from their statutory obligation to serve postrelease supervision ("PRS"). At issue was whether Double Jeopardy barred their resentencing to PRS; whether substantive due process barred their resentencing to PRS; whether a resentencing court may reconsider a defendant's sentence at a resentencing to correct a People v. Sparber error; and whether the appellate division may reduce a defendant's sentence on appeal from a resentencing to correct a Sparber error. The court rejected defendants' Double Jeopardy argument and held that after it handed down People v. Sparber, the legislature promptly adopted legislation to allow resentencing as many defendants as possible to sentences that include PRS. The court also rejected defendants' substantive due process argument where defendants did not give reason for the court to interpret substantive due process more broadly in these circumstances as a matter of state constitutional law. The court also held that resentencing to set right the flawed imposition of PRS at the original sentencing was not a plenary proceeding. The court further held that the Appellate Division could not reduce the prison sentence on appeal in the interest of justice when a trial court lacked discretion to reconsider the incarceratory component of a defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's order except People v. Sharlow, where the the order should be reversed and the resentence imposed by the Supreme Court reinstated.