In People v. Sparber , Daniel Sparber pled guilty to assault and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Since he was a "second violent felony offender," Sparber was required to serve an additional five-year period of post-release supervision (PRS).
Sparber argued he shouldn't undergo PRS since the court hadn't "pronounced [the PRS] orally, in his presence in open court" and the omission violated his constitutional due process rights.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, disagreed and affirmed Sparber's conviction and sentence.
When the dispute reached the New York State Court of Appeals, the sentencing court's procedure was viewed as "flawed" and noncompliant with the law's requirements.
While Sparber argued that the error warranted the expungement of the PRS obligation, the court feared giving him a "windfall" -- particularly, in the absence of any palpable prejudice and the omission's "ministerial" nature.
Our state's highest court was of the opinion that the misstep was correctable by vacating Sparber's sentence and sending his case back for a new sentencing hearing.
I'm sorry, I'm not feeling it. What's the motivation?
For a copy of the Court of Appeals's decision, please use this link: People v. Sparber