Weekley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The imposition of a harsher sentence after a defendant has successfully attacked a conviction or sentence on appeal gives rise to a presumption of vindictiveness which may be overcome only by identification of information in the record which justifies the increased sentence. United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 , 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), overruled, in part, on other grounds, Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 799-803 , 109 S.Ct. 2201, 2205-07 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989); Wemett v. State, 567 So.2d 882 (Fla.1990); Blackshear v. State, 531 So.2d 956 (Fla.1988). In the instant case, the sentences imposed upon remand are consecutive and, thus, are harsher than the original oral sentence of life with concurrent term of year sentences. The trial judge failed to overcome the presumption of vindictiveness since the judge during resentencing solely relied on evidence adduced at the earlier trial and not on any conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the original sentencing. See Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 368 , 102 S.Ct. at 2486 ; Pearce, 395 U.S. at 711 , 89 S.Ct. at 2072 ; Wemett, 567 So.2d at 882 ; Blackshear, 531 So.2d at 956 . Therefore, we conclude that the trial court violated the defendant's due process rights, and reverse his sentence. For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing in accordance with the trial court's original sentencing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 917 So. 2d 958 - Rodriguez v. State