Opinion ID: 160982
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Increased Sentence

Text: Petitioner argues that his increased sentence following trial was punishment for exercising his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. He contends there was no new “objective evidence” on which to base an enhanced sentence; he acknowledges, however, that there is no presumption of vindictiveness based on a greater sentence given after a trial which has followed the invalidation of a guilty plea for which a lesser sentence was received. See Alabama v. Smith , 490 U.S. 794, 801 (1989) (“Even when the same judge imposes both sentences, the relevant sentencing information available to the judge after the plea will usually be considerably less than that available after a trial.”). The state supreme court described, in meticulous detail, the factors considered by the trial court during sentencing. State v. Hemby , 957 P.2d at 436-37; see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4606 (describing criteria for sentencing for crimes committed prior to July 1, 1993). The trial court relied on information learned from the trial, the presentence investigation report, the Larned State Security Hospital report, and a report from the Topeka Correctional Facility. Petitioner’s sentence was not based on his silence or lack of remorse at sentencing but rather on his behavior throughout the proceedings, including specific -7- notations in the Larned and Topeka Correctional Facility reports. State v. Hemby , 957 P.2d at 436. 4