State v. Criswell

If a trial judge believes that an offender should receive a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed, the judge’s reasoning must appear on the record. Those reasons must be based on identified facts of which the first sentencing judge was unaware, and must not be a product of vindictiveness.

Criswell appealed a judgment of conviction for six counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and six counts of sodomy in the first degree. Criswell made a prior appeal and the case was remanded. Criswell was retried, convicted on fewer counts than in the first trial, but was sentenced to 844 months, which was substantially longer than his original sentence of 450 months. On this appeal, Criswell argued that the trial court erred when it imposed a harsher total sentence in the absence of express findings to justify the disparity. The Court held that if a trial judge believes that an offender should receive a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed, the judge’s reasoning must appear on the record. State v. Partain, 349 Or 10 (2010). Those reasons must be based on identified facts of which the first sentencing judge was unaware, and must not be a product of vindictiveness. Id. The Court held that the record did not divulge anything that would justify the considerable increased sentence and the ends of justice are served by remanding the matter to the trial court for resentencing. Remanded for resentencing.