Hudson v. State
318 Ga. App. 54
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- This is Hudson’s second appeal after we vacated and remanded for resentencing in Hudson I.
- Original trial court sentenced Hudson to life on aggravated sexual battery and 30 years on child molestation, with concurrent terms; a merge issue led to vacatur and remand.
- On remand, the court resentenced Hudson to 25 years on child molestation with 5 years probation, increasing the custodial term for that count.
- Hudson argued the remand sentence violated due process under Pearce because the new sentence was more severe after appealing the prior conviction.
- Georgia case law split between count-by-count (Anthony) and aggregate (Adams) approaches for determining a ‘more severe’ sentence on remand.
- This Court held Georgia follows the count-by-count approach, triggering Pearce’s vindictiveness presumption and remanding for reconsideration consistent with Pearce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pearce’s vindictiveness presumption applies | Hudson contends increased child molestation term triggers Pearce presumption | State argues no vindictiveness if aggregate analysis shows no overall harshening | Pearce presumption triggered under count-by-count approach |
| What methodology governs ‘more severe’ on remand | Adams’ aggregate approach controls, so new sentence not more severe overall | Anthony’s count-by-count approach remains binding | Georgia follows count-by-count; Anthony controls |
| Did the trial court provide objective reasons for increased sentence | Reasons must be post-sentencing conduct; same preexisting facts cited were insufficient | Trial court cited age, relationship, and prior offense as aggravating factors | Remand required to provide post-original-sentencing objective reasons |
| Is remand required to conform to Pearce/precedents | Remand necessary to conform with Pearce and Pearce progeny | Remand would undermine sentencing intent; should apply Pearce with objective data | Judgment reversed and remanded for reconsideration consistent with Pearce |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. State, 287 Ga. 513, 696 SE2d 676 (2010) (aggregate vs. count-by-count approach discussed)
- Anthony v. Hopper, 235 Ga. 336, 219 SE2d 413 (1975) (count-by-count approach; disciplinary standard)
- Pearce v. United States, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2069, 23 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1969) (presumption of vindictiveness; post-appeal sentence increase must be justified)
- Blake v. State, 272 Ga. App. 402, 612 S.E.2d 589 (2005) (supports Anthony count-by-count framework)
- Johnson v. State, 307 Ga. App. 499, 705 S.E.2d 303 (2010) (Pearce not triggered where new sentence not harsher)