State v. Parmelee
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
A defendant’s due process rights are violated if judicial vindictiveness plays a role in resentenc-ing after a successful appeal. To protect against vindictiveness, the United States Supreme Court, in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1969), held that a rebuttable presumption of vindictiveness arises when a court imposes a more severe sentence after a successful appeal. Subsequent Supreme Court cases, however, have limited the scope of the presumption. We hold that the presumption of vindictiveness did not arise in this case because (1) a different…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Alabama v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Colten v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Chaffin v. StynchcombeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Wasman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. ParmeleeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004