When a criminal defendant succeeds in appealing a conviction and subsequently is reconvicted by the trial court, this defendant might expect that the duration of the second sentence would not exceed the first. Nevertheless, there are times when a court might not satisfy this expectation. The fact that courts impose greater sentences after appeal is a reality for those defendants who challenge their convictions.
Courts can justify greater sentences for many reasons.
In determining an appropriate sentence, a sentencing judge may wish to consider the use of prior convictions unknown to the first trial judge, convictions the defendant obtained after the initial conviction but before sentencing after retrial, and the defendant's criminal conduct which was first made known to the court during the second trial. Judicial vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing judge, however, may play no part in the resentencing process. The State may not act in a manner which penalizes a person's reliance on legal rights by imposing a greater sentence with the explicit goal of punishing the successful exercise of the right to appeal. In an attempt to prevent apprehension of retaliatory motives, the Supreme Court of the United States, in North Carolina v. Pearce, held that whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for . . . This doctrine is known as the Pearce principle.