State v. Robledo

To increase a defendant’s sentence after appeal, a court must affirmatively state reasons for the longer sentence based on identified facts of which the first sentencing judge was unaware, and the longer sentence cannot be a product of vindictiveness towards the defendant.

Defendant appealed his sentence after fourth trial on the same charges, arguing that sentencing court acted vindictively in imposing a longer sentence after Defendant’s fourth retrial than it had after the first trial. At sentencing after the fourth trial, the trial court discarded the original sentence due to Defendant’s lack of remorse and imposed a lengthier sentence on Defendant. The court focused on the inappropriateness of requiring Defendant’s victims to return and re-testify in the trials following Defendant’s appeal. Defendant argued that he was maintaining his innocence, not demonstrating lack of remorse, and that the retrials were a product of Defendant’s right to appeal, against the exercise of which the court cannot retaliate. Under Partain, to increase a defendant’s sentence after appeal, a court must affirmatively state reasons for the longer sentence based on identified facts of which the first sentencing judge was unaware, and the longer sentence cannot be a product of vindictiveness towards the defendant. The Court found that the sentencing court explicitly punished Defendant for exercising his rights to appeal by basing its reasoning on the victims’ need to return for trials following the appeal. Remanded for resentencing.