Piper v. State
320 Ga. App. 120
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Piper charged with meth possession and drug object in 2008 (Case No. 08-CR-1027-J).
- In 2009, Piper indicted for theft; State nolle pros the 2008 charges in exchange for a guilty plea in 09-CR-086-A.
- Piper sentenced to probation in 2009 case; probation violation led to habeas corpus petition that was granted in 2011.
- State recharged Piper on December 15, 2011 with the same offenses that had been nolle prossed.
- Piper's plea in bar argued vindictive prosecution because charges were refiled after habeas petition victory.
- Trial court denied the plea; ruled no evidence of vindictiveness; relied on cases permitting charging decisions absent vindictiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutorial vindictiveness was proven | Piper argued vindictiveness for reindicting after habeas win. | State contends no vindictiveness; moving back to pre-plea posture is legitimate. | No actual vindictiveness proven; conviction affirmed dismissal not warranted. |
| Applicable standard for prosecutorial vindictiveness after a procedural remedy | Pearce-based presumption may apply to post-remedy sentencing or reindictment. | Presumption does not automatically apply; must show actual evidence of vindictiveness. | Pearce presumption is not triggered absent reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness; no evidence shown. |
| Effect of Goodwin and related authorities on whether mere timing supports vindictiveness | Any increased charges after protected right implies vindictiveness. | Timing alone does not prove vindictiveness; must show actual improper motive. | Mere opportunity for vindictiveness insufficient; record lacked actual vindictiveness evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (prosecutor may carry out plea-threats without violating due process)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (vindictiveness prohibition after retrial)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1974) (ban on vindictiveness after appellate remedy for misdemeanant)
- Adams v. State, 299 Ga. App. 39 (Ga. App. 2009) (Pearce-like framework; presumption limited to vindictiveness)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (limits on prophylactic vindictiveness rule)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982) (evidence of vindictiveness must be more than timing)
- Lopez v. State, 267 Ga. App. 178 (Ga. App. 2004) (reindictment not automatically vindictive motive)
- Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 670 (Ga. 2012) (no presumption of vindictiveness absent actual evidence)
- Brandenburg v. State, 292 Ga. App. 191 (Ga. App. 2008) (prosecution's charging decisions after plea negotiations need not imply vindictiveness)