Catchings v. State, 111 So. 3d 1238

Catchings pled guilty on November 28, 2005 to three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault, with concurrent sentences (20 years for aggravated assault, 35 years for each armed robbery, 10 years suspended).
First PCR (2008) alleged involuntary guilty pleas due to misinformed day-for-day sentences; court found involuntary pleas and offered Catchings either resentencing or new pleas.
Catchings chose resentencing; court resentenced to 35 years for each armed-robbery count with 18 years to serve day-for-day and 17 years suspended, plus 20 years for aggravated assault.
Second PCR (2008) claimed misinforming consequences of sentences on remand; circuit court dismissed as successive writ; Mississippi Court of Appeals remanded to consider merits and held new pleas or trial should occur.
On remand (2011), Catchings entered open pleas to all charges; circuit court sentenced 35 years per armed robbery and 20 years aggravated assault, all to be served concurrently; third PCR motion dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Remand remedy for involuntary pleas	Catchings argues the remand required resentencing, not trial, and that sentencing should follow the prior plea agreement.	Catchings contends the court was bound to re-sentence under the original plea and erred by sending him to trial.	Remand allowed trial, not reimpose original plea sentencing.
Double jeopardy protection on remand	Catchings asserts double jeopardy protections apply due to renewed proceedings after involuntary pleas.	State argues no double jeopardy barrier because pleas were vacated and convictions potentially set aside.	No double jeopardy violation; new proceedings permitted.
Judicial vindictiveness on remand sentencing	Catchings claims enhanced sentence shows vindictiveness by the post-plea judge.	State argues new evidence and different judge justify a higher sentence; no vindictiveness.	No vindictiveness; record rebutted presumption.

Wade v. State, 802 So.2d 1023 (Miss. 2001) (plea agreements are recommendations; court has discretion)
Courtney v. State, 704 So.2d 1352 (Miss. Ct. App. 1997) (when pleas involuntary, must vacate pleas and sentences)
Lanier v. State, 635 So.2d 813 (Miss. 1994) (positions of parties restored when pleas vacated)
Stevenson v. State, 674 So.2d 501 (Miss. 1996) (prevents resentence without new pleas after vacating pleas)
State v. Danley, 573 So.2d 691 (Miss. 1990) (double jeopardy issue where reprosecution allowed after certain breaches)
Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1988) (when conviction reversed on appeal, proceed as if no prior trial)
Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521 (1905) (prosecution may proceed anew if no acquittal from prior trial)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (need to articulate reasons for harsher second sentence to avoid vindictiveness)
Bush v. State, 667 So.2d 26 (Miss. 1996) (different sentencing hearings may involve different judges and evidence)
Lee v. State, 78 So.3d 330 (Miss. 2012) (standard for reviewing PCR dismissals is clearly erroneous factual findings)