WHETHER OR NOT/WHEN ONE HAS EXCERSIZED HIS RIGHT TO TRIAL AND
RF. FOUND GUILTY OF A COUNT IN HIS INDICTMENT THAT WOULD LATER
RF. FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DURING HIS INCARCERATION, IS .THAT
PERSON ENTITLED TO BE PRESENT FOR A RESENTENCING HEARING_JLN ^
LIGHT OF PEPPER v. U.S. AND § 3553(a) FACTORS THAT NOW FAVORI.
HIM

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED AFTER A DEFENDANT 'S COUNT IN HIS
INDICTMENT WAS LATER FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AFTER EXCER"STZTNO HIS RFGHT TO TRIAL - THE COURT THEN CLAIMED THAT THE
.TIIDOMF.NT WAS "CORRECTED" NOT 'VACATED" -II.

CAN A COURT 'CORRECT'A JUDGMENT AS OPPOSED TO ''VACATING 1 A-Jimfir
MENT WHEN A COUNT IS LATER FOUND TO 'BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL T.Q.
JUSTIFY A NEW SENTENCE BY JUST SUBTRACTING THAT COUNT'.S TERM
OF IMPRISONMENT FROM THE TOTAL TERM IN CALCULATING A NEW
SENTEN CE OR IS THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND A VIOLATION OF DUE.
PROCESS - WHEN A PLENARY RESENTENCING WAS WARRANTED -III.

IS IT UNCONS TITUTIONAL FOR A COURT TO MODIFY A SENTENCE AFTER
A rnnp t"n a PERSON'S INDICTMENT WAS LATER TO BE FOUND TO_BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL (WHEN ONE WAS CONVICTED OF THAT SAME COUJiX
HIS PEERS), WITHOUT FULL REVIEW OF § 3553(a;
Factors in light of pepper v. u.S.
SENTENCING PACK AGE DOCTRINE A PLENARY RESENTENCING SUPPORTS
STRAYHORN A RESENTENCING HEARING -/.IV.

BY A JURY OFESPECIALLY WHEN UNDER
THE

Whether a defendant is entitled to a resentencing hearing when a count in their indictment is later found unconstitutional