State v. Hudson
293 Ga. 656
Ga.2013Background
- Georgia Supreme Court granted cert to decide whether Pearce vindictiveness is triggered by a new sentence after initial sentence vacated; split between count-by-count and aggregate methods persists.
- Court adopted aggregate approach over Anthony v. Hopper, overruling that precedent to the extent it requires count-by-count analysis.
- Pearce presumes vindictiveness when a more severe sentence is imposed after retrial/remand; reasons to overcome must be objective and based on defendant conduct.
- Arguments discussed: majority view in Adams v. State favored aggregate; this case aligns with aggregate to reflect sentencing discretion and big-picture considerations.
- Court emphasizes Pearce aims to deter sentencing judge vindictiveness and to reflect practical realities of multi-count sentencing schemes.
- Court notes that stare decisis concerns weigh against precedent but are outweighed by workability, reliance, and the soundness of reasoning in preferring aggregate; Anthony v. Hopper is overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper method to measure if a sentence is more severe under Pearce? | State argues aggregate approach. | Hudson argued count-by-count approach. | Aggregate approach adopted; count-by-count overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (Supreme Court 1969) (presumption of vindictiveness after retrial; need for objective reasons to overcome)
- Adams v. State, 287 Ga. 513 (Ga. 2010) (plurality favored aggregate approach; reflects sentencing realities)
- Anthony v. Hopper, 235 Ga. 336 (Ga. 1975) (original count-by-count framework; overruled to extent adopted)
- Blake v. State, 272 Ga. App. 402 (Ga. App. 2005) (endorses concerns with count-by-count approach; supports aggregate view)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (Supreme Court 1991) (state interest in revisiting precedent; doctrine relevance)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (Supreme Court 1989) (limits Pearce presumptions; post-plea vs post-trial scenarios)
- Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court 1986) (Pearce doctrine refined; limits on vindictiveness)
- Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (Supreme Court 1984) (Pearce framework clarification)
- Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court 1973) (Pearce applicability to resentencing)