State of Iowa v. Stevie Dewayne Harrington
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 89
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Harrington and his brother were charged with five drug-related offenses after drug/weapon searches in 2007; Harrington pled guilty to counts V and VI regarding possession with intent to deliver near a school and tax-stamp offenses.
- Original district court sentence totaled forty years, including a mandatory 10-year term for count I and a consecutive 10-year term for count V, with concurrent 5-year terms for counts II, III, and VI.
- On appeal, the court of appeals held insufficient evidence supported the count I firearm-enhancement and improper factors were used, so remand for resentencing occurred.
- Upon remand, the district court imposed two discretionary five-year enhancements for being within 1000 feet of a school or park in counts I and V, which were not applied originally.
- Harrington argued the remand sentence created a presumption of judicial vindictiveness under Pearce because a harsher sentence followed a successful appeal, despite an overall shorter aggregate sentence.
- The Iowa Supreme Court adopted the aggregate-sentencing approach, holding no Pearce presumption applies when the overall aggregate sentence after remand is less than the original aggregate sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Pearce apply when aggregate sentence after remand is lower? | Harrington argues Pearce applies to vindictiveness. | State contends Pearce presumption does not apply due to aggregate decrease. | Aggregate approach controls; no presumption. |
| Should Iowa adopt aggregate or count-by-count approach for remand sentencing? | Harrington urges count-by-count or reject strict aggregate. | State supports aggregate approach as best fit for integrated sentencing. | Court adopts aggregate approach. |
| Is the vindictiveness analysis governed by federal or Iowa due process guarantees? | Harrington asserts due process protections under both constitutions. | State argues standard aligns with Pearce and federal precedent. | Same result under federal and Iowa due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. Supreme Court 1969) (presumption of vindictiveness when remanded sentence is harsher)
- Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (victim of vindictiveness limited by subsequent decisions)
- Campbell, 106 F.3d 64 (5th Cir. 1997) (adopts aggregate-sentence approach in vindictiveness context)
- Bolsinger, 738 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (aggregate vs. presumption of vindictiveness in Iowa context)
- State v. King, 797 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 2011) (preserves due process considerations in Iowa with federal alignment)
- People v. Young, 723 N.E.2d 58 (N.Y. 1999) (NY approach cited as comparison for count-by-count viability)