Opinion ID: 2250509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: People v Lingle

Text: On April 21, 2004, a jury convicted defendant Lingle of second degree arson and first degree reckless endangerment. He was sentenced as a second felony offender to a 14-year determinate sentence on the arson count and a concurrent indeterminate sentence of 3½ to 7 years on the reckless endangerment count. In pronouncing these sentences, the court failed to mention a mandatory five-year PRS term. Instead, the PRS term was reflected in the court worksheet, which the judge signed. That term was also noted in the commitment sheet prepared by the court clerk and signed by the judge. Defendant's appellate arguments seeking the elimination of the PRS term from his sentence were rejected for the same reasons stated in Sparber and Thomas PRS was included in the pronounced sentence by operation of law and the notation of the PRS term on the worksheet and commitment sheet comported with Hill 's rule that every portion of a sentence be `entered upon the records of the court' ( see 34 AD3d 287, 289 [1st Dept 2006], quoting Hill, 298 US at 464, and citing Earley, 451 F3d at 75-76). A Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal and we now modify and remit to Supreme Court for appropriate resentencing.