State v. Schneider, 2013 Ohio 2532

Joanne Schneider was indicted in 2005 on 163 counts including RICO (pattern of corrupt activity), theft, securities fraud, money laundering, and telecommunications fraud.
In 2009 Schneider pleaded guilty to 13 counts; the trial court originally sentenced her to three years.
The state appealed, arguing Count 1 carried a mandatory ten-year term; this court reversed and remanded for resentencing.
On remand Schneider unsuccessfully moved to withdraw her plea; after further appeals and another plea agreement she agreed to and was sentenced to a non‑mandatory nine‑year prison term (plea suspended fines).
Schneider challenged (1) the increased sentence as presumptively vindictive, (2) classification/penalty on Count 49 (theft), (3) ineffective assistance for not objecting to Count 49’s classification, and (4) imposition of a fine/costs on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nine‑year sentence on remand was vindictive increase	State: sentence was authorized by law and resulted from a plea agreement	Schneider: increase from 3 to 9 years after remand is presumptively vindictive	Court: R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review because sentence was jointly recommended in a plea; no vindictiveness shown — overruled
Whether fine/costs on remand were vindictive	State: $250 in costs is within discretion and suspended	Schneider: imposition of fine on remand (not in original sentence) is presumptively vindictive	Court: no reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness; fine was minimal and suspended — overruled
Proper felony degree and sentencing for Count 49	State (conceded on appeal): Count 49 is a second‑degree felony	Schneider: Count 49 is a second‑degree felony (not first) and should be resentenced accordingly	Court: State concedes; court sustains error and remands for resentencing on Count 49 — sustained
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Count 49 degree	State: no dispute after concession	Schneider: counsel was ineffective for not advising/arguing Count 49 was second‑degree	Court: because Count 49 was misclassified, trial counsel’s failure warranted relief — sustained

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (due process prohibits harsher sentencing to punish a defendant for exercising appeal rights)
Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (presumption of vindictiveness arises only when a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists; otherwise defendant must prove actual vindictiveness)
Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1984) (burden on defendant to prove actual vindictiveness absent circumstances giving rise to a presumption)