State v. Hollingshead, Unpublished Decision (7-31-2002)
State v. Hollingshead, Unpublished Decision (7-31-2002)
Opinion of the Court
In a single assignment of error, defendant-appellant Maurice Hollingshead appeals from the imposition of a longer prison term by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas following Hollingshead's successful appeal of the trial court's earlier failure to make the findings to support the twelve-month prison term. Upon remand, the trial court imposed a seventeen-month sentence — one month less than the maximum sentence for a fourth-degree felony.
A rebuttable presumption of sentencing vindictiveness, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arises when the same judge resentences a defendant to a harsher sentence following a successful appeal. See North Carolina v. Pearce (1969),
As "[n]othing in the Constitution requires a judge to ignore `objective information * * * justifying the increased sentence,'" we overrule the assignment of error in light of the trial court's renewed emphasis on and consideration, at the resentencing hearing, of Hollingshead's prior criminal activities in relation to his violation of prison rules while awaiting resentencing. See Texas v. McCullough,
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.
Gorman, P.J., Sundermann and Winkler, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.