Does the New Jersey judicial process of preparing a judgment of conviction in the petitioner's absence, departing from the orally pronounced sentence, and resentencing with a harsher penalty violate the petitioner's constitutional rights?

Does the New Jersey judicial process, by (1) preparing the judgment of conviction in the petitioner ’s absence, (2) departing from the orally pronounced sentence —which New Jersey law holds as the controlling determination of punishment —and (3) subsequently resentencing the petitioner in a manner that imposes a harsher penalty in contravention of the Double Jeopardy Clause, thereby infringe the petitioner ’s Federal rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as his due process rights? Specifically, does this practice run afoul of the settled precedent in cases such as Bartone v. United States 1 and related U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing the requirement that a defendant be present at all critical stages of punishment and that the oral sentence —absent an unequivocal waiver —is controlling? 1 Bartone v. United States, 375 U.S. 52, (1963). 1