PRS

CAL’s advocacy in the area of post-release supervision illustrates the multiple levels of our practice.

With the Court of Appeals’ decision in 2005 in People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242 (2005), holding that guilty pleas are unconstitutional and subject to vacatur if the court failed to advise the defendant about the post-release supervision component of his or her sentence, CAL entered the PRS litigation arena. We brought Catu motions seeking plea vacatur in trial court, and raised Catu claims on appeal. Our work in People v. Hill, 9 N.Y.3d 189 (2007), typifies our multi-level advocacy in this area. Identifying Catu error in the plea minutes, we brought a motion back in trial court, asking for vacatur of Mr. Hill’s plea.  The lower court declined to vacate the plea, seeking instead to remedy the Catu error by adjusting the prison portion of Mr. Hill’s sentence downward. We did not agree that this was an appropriate remedy and successfully took Mr. Hill’s case up to the Court of Appeals, where Mr. Hill's plea was vacated.

With the Second Circuit’s decision in 2006 in Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006), nullifying the period of post-release supervision added to Mr. Earley's sentence by the Department of Corrections, CAL began aggressively challenging the sentences of clients whose PRS terms were imposed by DOCS.  Ultimately, these challenges led us to the Court of Appeals, and resulted in a landmark decision in People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 358 (2008), requiring judicial pronouncement of PRS at sentencing.

Thus began a new era in CAL’s PRS litigation. With hundreds of previously sentenced prisoners now returning to court for judicial pronouncement of their PRS, CAL launched a new offensive: CAL argued that resentencing individuals to PRS years after their original sentencing violated double jeopardy, due process, and New York statutory and common-law. In yet another landmark decision secured by CAL, the Court of Appeals in People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198 (2010), issued a sweeping decision holding that double jeopardy bars the imposition of PRS on individuals who had completed their sentences.  As a result of that decision, hundreds of individuals were able to challenge the belated imposition of PRS.

In response to Sparber and Williams, CAL initiated its PRS trial project. Appellate counsel and PRS specialist Lauren Springer routinely appears in trial court, representing individuals returned to court for PRS proceedings. At these proceedings, CAL continues to advocate for the elimination or reduction of these newly imposed PRS terms, or for plea vacatur where appropriate. Ms. Springer also works closely with CAL’s clients to assist them with their conditions of confinement and re-entry needs.