Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Vindictiveness and Foster resentencing

You're representing a client on a Foster sentencing remand:  the judge gave your guy, a first-time offender, three years on a third-degree felony, after making the findings justifying a more-than-minimum sentence, but the court of appeals vacated it because Foster declared the more-than-minimum findings unconstitutional.  A number of people, yours truly included, have noted the absurdity of this:  if the judge went to the trouble of making findings to impose more than the minimum sentence, it doesn't make much sense to remand the case for resentencing where he can impose more than the minimum sentence without making any findings at all.  But here's the tricky part:  while it's unlikely that the judge is going to give your client less time, can he give him more?

That was the exact situation faced a few weeks back by the 3rd District in State v. Wagner.  The defendant had been sentenced to 12 months on a fourth-degree felony, the sentence was vacated under Foster, and on remand the judge gave him 15 months.  As the court indicated, this raised the question of vindictiveness in resentencing.  Normally, if a judge hands down a stiffer sentence after an appeal, there's a presumption that it's retaliation for the defendant having exercised his constitutional rights.

That's only a presumption, and there's some big exceptions.  If the initial sentencing was on a plea, and the defendant then goes to trial and is convicted, all bets are off; the lack of acceptance of responsibility, plus what comes out at trial, is almost invariably sufficient to impose a stiffer sentence.  You might want to check out this decision last year from the 5th District, which discusses the law on vindictiveness in resentencing in more detail.

Still, the general rule is that the trial court has to state some reason for increasing the sentence.  Keep in mind that Foster itself might provide that reason.  If, for example, the judge gave the minimum sentence the first time around, it seems likely that he can overcome the presumption of vindictiveness by pointing out that he had to make findings before giving more than the minimum sentence before, and now he doesn't have to do that.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech