Sean Earley v. Timothy Murray

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the DOCS practice of adding PRS to a sentence where Penal Law § 70.45 required it, but the sentencing judge had not imposed it, was unconstitutional
• “recognizing] differences between the facts of Wampler and those before us [in this case],” viz., that Wampler involved a sentencing decision that was “by law, within the discretion of the sentencing judge”
• stating a defendant on supervised release is “in custody” pursuant to his sentence for purposes of seeking habeas relief
• “Post-release supervision, admitting of the possibility of revocation and additional jail time, is considered to be ‘custody.’”
• “Post-release supervision, admitting of the possibility of revocation and additional jail time, is considered to be ‘custody.’”
• “Post-release supervision, admitting of the possibility of revocation and additional jail time, is considered to be ‘custody.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).