Federal Judiciary

United States v. Day, Docket Nos. 05-4285-cr(L), 06-5737-cr(CON), 06-5820-cr(CON) (2d Cir. Jan. 15, 2008) (found here)

Day's original sentence was reversed and remanded because the district court erroneously believed that the two minimum sentences for his narcotics convicted must run consecutively.  On remand, both Day and the Government agreed that "the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing because the district court violated Day's right to be present at resentencing, his right to counsel at resentencing, and his right to notice that the court intended to impose an adverse non-Guidelines sentence."  You see, my friends, the district court resentenced Day without providing notice to him or his counsel.  And, it only provided a written sentencing explanation in the form of a memorandum and order, whivh violated 18 U.S.C. 3553(c)'s requirement that a sentencing judge state "in open court" the reasons for imposing a particular sentence.

As my title indicates, how could this have happened?  Does anyone know the back story?  The judge on the case is experienced.  There must have been crossed wires somewhere.  Nevertheless, Day is truly entitled to a new day in court.