Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 6
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Sanjari owed roughly $57,000 in child support arrearage after divorce from Gratzol.
- He was convicted of two Class C felony nonsupport and two Class D felony nonsupport counts; trial court imposed two consecutive five-year terms.
- Indiana Supreme Court reduced one conviction to Class D and remanded for resentencing; original aggregate sentence was 10 years.
- On remand, trial court sentenced to eight years for Class C and two years for Class D, aggregate 10 years, to be served consecutively.
- Appellate review addressed double jeopardy, vindictiveness, and whether aggregate sentence remained appropriate given remand.
- Trial court found substantial aggravators (harm far beyond elements, unemployment, harassment, likelihood of future nonpayment) and limited mitigating factor (lack of prior record).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy on remand | Sanjari argues remand violates double jeopardy due to new sentence. | State contends new sentence supersedes former as original was vacated, not punished twice. | No double jeopardy; vacated sentence replaced by new sentence. |
| Due process and vindictiveness—actual vindictiveness | Sanjari claims trial court vindictively resentenced after appeal. | State asserts no vindictive motive supported by record. | No actual vindictiveness shown; no due process violation. |
| Presumed vindictiveness on remand | Aggregate length on remand could invite presumption of vindictiveness. | Aggregate sentence not greater than original; no presumption. | No presumption of vindictiveness; aggregate was not longer than original. |
| Inappropriateness of aggregate sentence | Aggregate ten years is excessive given offenses. | Court properly weighed aggravators and mitigating factors; sentence justified. | Ten-year aggregate sentence fully justified; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (due process limits vindictiveness in sentencing after appeal)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (vindictiveness prohibition after new trial)
- Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1989) (aggregate vs. count-by-count vindictiveness framework)
- U.S. v. Evans, 314 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 2002) (aggregate approach to vindictiveness after remand)
- People v. Woellhaf, 199 P.3d 27 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007) (aggregate sentence comparison to avoid presuming vindictiveness)
- Adams v. State, 696 S.E.2d 676 (Ga. 2010) (majority aggregate approach to multiple convictions)