State v. Chapman, 2012 Ohio 640

Chapman, English, and Smith planned a 2005 home invasion robbery that left English dead and Fiske wounded; Chapman was later retried after initial reversals.
Chapman was initially convicted in 2007 and again after retrial in 2009; sentence for 30 years to life vacated on appeal.
On remand, Chapman moved for the trial judge’s recusal, and a different judge resentenced him to 33 years to life.
The resentencing judge considered multiple reports and arguments, including both defense and guardian ad litem representations.
Chapman appealed, challenging the recusal ruling and the increased sentence as improper after remand and recusal.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the resentencing within the trial court’s discretion and rejecting the asserted improprieties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge’s recusal was properly granted.	Chapman contends the trial judge erred in granting recusal.	Chapman argues the recusal misapplied law and circumvented remand.	Overruled; court lacked jurisdiction and invited-error defenses barred the challenge.
Whether resentencing after remand/recusal created impropriety or exceeded remand scope.	Chapman argues resentencing exceeded remand and appearance of impropriety.	Chapman claims the second judge misused remand authority.	Overruled; resentencing within discretion and permissible after retrial events.
Whether the increase in sentence after remand was improper vindictiveness or justified by law.	Chapman asserts vindictiveness due to remand proceedings.	Different sentencers negate presumptions of vindictiveness; reasonableness supported by record.	Overruled; no vindictiveness presumption; discretion to sentence post-retrial acknowledged.

State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 131 Ohio St.3d 54 (2012-Ohio-28) (no jurisdiction over recusal rulings; invited error doctrine applies)
State v. Rohrbaugh, 126 Ohio St.3d 421 (2010-Ohio-3286) (invited error doctrine applied to recusal/assignment issues)
State v. King, 9th Dist. No. 10CA009755, 2010-Ohio-4400 (2010-Ohio-4400) (two-step approach to post-Foster sentencing review)
State v. Chapman, 190 Ohio App.3d 528, 2010-Ohio-5924 (9th Dist.) (remand and sentencing considerations in Chapman lineage)
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) (recognizes broad sentencing discretion after retrial)
McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (1986) (presumption of vindictiveness not applied when different sentencers impose sentences)
Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (vindictiveness standard; burden on defendant to show actual malice)
Lodi v. McMasters, 31 Ohio App.3d 275 (1986) (no vindictive inference when second sentence from a different court)
State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 131 Ohio St.3d 54 (2012-Ohio-28) (jurisdictional limits on recusal rulings)