People v. Capers

The court properly resentenced defendant to comply with the requirement that a term of postrelease supervision (PRS) be part of the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. This case presents a variation on the interplay between People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]) and People v Catu (4 NY3d 242 [2005]).

*428Defendant pleaded guilty without being informed that the sentence was required to include a period of PRS (see Catu), and PRS was not imposed by the court, but by the Department of Correctional Services (see Sparber). At a resentencing proceeding under Correction Law § 601-d, defendant opposed…