Opinion ID: 1621175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: failure to argue fundamental error for unexplained increase in original sentence

Text: Finally, Holland contends that appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise or discuss an allegedly fundamental sentencing error. Holland claims that the trial court committed fundamental error by not stating its reasons for increasing Holland's original sentence for armed robbery from seventeen years to life upon reconviction for the same offense, other than the fact that the defendant was convicted of an unscorable capital felony. We find this argument to be without merit. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that state courts must include their reasons for imposing a more severe sentence upon reconviction, but this does not automatically apply in every situation where the defendant receives a harsher sentence on retrial. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 723-26, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires state courts to include in the record the reasons for imposing a more severe sentence upon reconviction); Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 138, 140, 106 S.Ct. 976, 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986) (recognizing that the Pearce presumption does not automatically apply in situations where different judges assigned the sentences). In cases like Holland's where the judge presiding over the retrial was not the same judge who presided over the original trial, the defendant bears the burden of proving the court acted with actual vindictiveness. Graham v. State, 681 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Holland has failed to make the requisite showing of vindictiveness. For these reasons, we find that Holland's fourth claim is also without merit.