People v. SansonePeople v. Sansone
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his request, at the resentencing proceeding, for an updated presentence report and an adjournment to allow defense counsel to prepare a sentencing memorandum. The court directed that the defendant be resentenced solely for purpose of correcting its procedural error in failing to pronounce the postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) component of his sentence (see People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 472 [2008]), and the defendant’s previously adjudicated status as a second violent felony offender mandated the imposition of a five-year period of PRS (see
Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Fisher and Eng, JJ., concur.