Resentencing; People v. Lockridge; United States v. Crosby (2d Cir.)

Concluding that the trial court on remand complied with the Crosby procedure set out in Lockridge, and gave an “appropriate explanation” for deciding not to resentence defendant, the court affirmed the order denying him resentencing. He was convicted of AWIM and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to 210 to 500 months for AWIM to be served consecutively to his 2-year sentence for felony-firearm. The court previously affirmed, but the Supreme Court later reversed as to his sentencing and remanded the “case to the trial court for possible resentencing in accordance with the Crosby remand procedure” as provided in Lockridge. Defendant now requested another remand for additional resentencing proceedings, arguing that, pursuant to Lockridge, the trial court did not state an appropriate explanation for its decision. But the court noted that it “afforded defendant the opportunity to avoid resentencing. Instead, defendant wrote a letter to the trial court clerk’s office asking for an update on the Supreme Court’s remand order and the status of his legal representation for resentencing. The trial court then received input from defendant’s counsel in the form of a” memo, and the prosecution’s response. It “noted in its written order that it had reviewed the file, pleadings, and presentence investigation report and would not have imposed a materially different sentence under the Lockridge sentencing procedure. Ultimately, the trial court affirmed defendant’s sentence without a hearing, explaining that ‘it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its decision[.]’” The court concluded that its reference in its order to reviewing the documents in the trial court record before making its decision “provided the necessary basis for reaffirming defendant’s original sentence.”