State v. Reinke

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 11-22-2017
  • Case #: A157528
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Egan, J.; & Shorr, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A sentence imposed on remand cannot be vindictive. State v. Partain, 349 Or 10, 24-25, 239 P3d 232 (2010). To determine if a sentence imposed on remand is vindictive, the appellate court must examine (1) if the second sentence is more severe than the original based on the total length of time, if so, (2) if the resentencing court articulated “a wholly logical, nonvindicitive reason for the more severe sentence. State v. Sierra, 361 Or 723, 744, 399 P3d 987 (2017).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for second-degree kidnapping (ORS 163.225). Defendant challenged the sentence he received on remand and assigned error to the resentencing court’s imposition of a sentence longer than the sentence he originally received. Defendant argued the resentencing court’s decision to ameliorate the trial court’s errors failed to articulate sufficient reasoning to support an increased sentence. A sentence imposed on remand cannot be vindictive. State v. Partain, 349 Or 10, 24-25, 239 P3d 232 (2010). To determine if a sentence imposed on remand is vindictive, the appellate court must examine (1) if the second sentence is more severe than the original based on the total length of time, if so, (2) if the resentencing court articulated “a wholly logical, nonvindicitive reason for the more severe sentence. State v. Sierra, 361 Or 723, 744, 399 P3d 987 (2017). The Court of Appeals held that while the second sentence is longer in duration than the original, the resentencing court did not error because the record supported its decision to impose a longer sentence in order to correct the trial court’s errors with Defendant’s original sentence. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search