Arnold v. State
324 Ga. App. 58
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 1999 Bernard Arnold pleaded guilty to kidnapping, rape, and firearm-possession and received combined sentences; he later obtained habeas relief (2007) because his plea waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege was not shown, withdrew his plea, and received a jury trial.
- At trial the jury acquitted Arnold of rape and firearm-possession but convicted him of one count of kidnapping; the trial court sentenced him to 20 years.
- Facts viewed favorably to the verdict: at ~3:00 a.m. Arnold forced his ex‑girlfriend (4'9", 125 lbs.) from her bedroom, dragged her out of the house across yards while she screamed, threatened her with her gun, and (the victim testified) raped her afterwards; the son witnessed part of the attack and sought help.
- Arnold appealed, arguing (1) post‑trial sentence was vindictive because it exceeded the plea sentence; (2) insufficient evidence of asportation for kidnapping; and (3) erroneous jury charge on asportation requiring a new trial.
- The trial judge (different from the plea judge) explained the upward sentence was based on extensive evidence and victim/family testimony heard at sentencing, not vindictiveness.
- The court found the movement (dragging from bedroom through yard into neighbor’s yard) satisfied the asportation standard and that any instructional error was harmless under the later Garza standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a greater post‑trial sentence violated due process as impermissibly vindictive | Arnold: 20‑year sentence after trial is vindictive because it exceeds the 15‑year plea sentence | State: Pearce presumption does not apply when first sentence follows a guilty plea; judge based increase on fuller record and victim testimony, not retaliation | No due‑process violation; Smith limits Pearce presumption and court found objective reasons for longer sentence |
| Whether evidence of asportation was sufficient to support kidnapping conviction | Arnold: Movement insufficient under Garza (asportation not met) | State: Dragging victim through yard into neighbor’s yard increased isolation and risk, satisfying Garza factors | Evidence sufficient under Garza (movement duration, not inherent to separate offense, increased danger) |
| Whether erroneous jury instruction (slight‑movement standard) requires new trial | Arnold: Trial court should have given Garza‑based instruction; error was reversible | State: Garza applies retroactively but instructional error was harmless given the undisputed forceful dragging and increased risk | Instruction was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (due process forbids vindictiveness in harsher sentencing after successful challenge)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (Pearce presumption does not apply when increased sentence follows conviction after a guilty plea)
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (adopts multi‑factor test for asportation assessing duration, relation to separate offense, inherentness, and independent danger)
- Government of the Virgin Islands v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221 (Third Circuit articulation of the multi‑factor asportation test used in Garza)