Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bowser v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided May 16, 2019No. 71516Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStiglich, J.

I concur with the majority's adoption of a count-by-count method to determine whether a subsequent sentence is harsher than the sentence originally imposed. And therefore I agree with the majority that Bowser' second sentence "was more severe than his original sentence for due process purposes." Majority opinion ante at 543. However, I disagree with the majority's adoption of a bright line rule that a presumption of vindictiveness "does not apply where a different judge imposes a higher sentence after retrial than the first judge," Majority opinion ante at 544, and thus I respectfully dissent.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Alabama v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Chaffin v. StynchcombeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Texas v. McCulloughSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. United States v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API