PEOPLE v. LINGLE

The court properly resentenced defendant to comply with the requirement that a term of postrelease supervision be part of the court's oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant's challenges to his resentencing are similar to arguments rejected by this Court in People v Hernandez ( 59 AD3d 180, Iv granted 12 NY3d 817). In addition, since defendant was resentenced while still serving his prison sentence, his claim that he had a legitimate expectation of finality in his original defective sentence is even weaker than the argument made in Hernandez. We also note that defendant was one of the defendants in People v Sparber ( 10 NY3d 457), and his resentencing for the purpose of orally imposing postrelease supervision was expressly mandated by the Court of Appeals.

To the extent defendant is requesting a reduction of his prison sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we find that request both procedurally improper on the present appeal and without merit.