State v. Thomas, 2017 Ohio 9274

In 1993, A.W. was raped; DNA later linked Jermain Thomas to the crime. He was indicted in 2013 on rape, kidnapping, and firearm-specifications.
At the 2014 trial Thomas was convicted; the trial court sentenced him under the 1993 law to concurrent indefinite 8–25 year terms on rape and kidnapping plus a consecutive 3-year firearm term.
On appeal this court held Thomas should have been sentenced under H.B. 86 (the 2011 sentencing law) and remanded for resentencing; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that result and remanded.
The trial court resentenced Thomas (after prior appeals and stays) to concurrent 11‑year definite terms on rape and kidnapping (maximum under H.B. 86), plus a consecutive 3‑year firearm term.
Thomas appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 in imposing maximum terms, and (2) the 11‑year terms were a vindictive, harsher sentence on remand after his successful appeal.
The appellate court vacated Thomas’s sentences, holding a presumption of vindictiveness arose and the record lacked objective, non‑vindictive reasons to support the increased (maximum) sentences; remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the resentencing produced a harsher, vindictive sentence in violation of due process	State implicitly: resentencing under correct law is proper and within court’s discretion	Thomas: resentencing produced a harsher result (11 yrs vs. prior 8–25 indeterminate) after his successful appeal, creating presumption of vindictiveness	Court: Presumption of vindictiveness arises; vacated sentence because no objective, nonvindictive reasons were stated on record
Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing maximum terms	State: court considered relevant factors at resentencing	Thomas: court failed to justify maximum terms consistent with statutory factors	Court: Moot after finding vindictiveness presumption; remanded for resentencing

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (presumption of vindictiveness when a harsher sentence is imposed after a new trial; reasons for increased sentence must affirmatively appear in the record)
Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1984) (burden remains on defendant to prove actual vindictiveness when presumption does not arise)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (punishing a person for exercising a lawful right violates due process)
Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (presumption of vindictiveness does not apply in every case where a higher sentence follows an appeal)
State v. Thomas, 148 Ohio St.3d 248 (Ohio 2016) (Ohio Supreme Court decision directing sentencing under H.B. 86)
State v. Rahab, 80 N.E.3d 431 (Ohio 2017) (discussing narrow band of cases where vindictiveness is presumed)
State v. O’Dell, 45 Ohio St.3d 140 (Ohio 1989) (sentence vindictively imposed for exercising a constitutional right is contrary to law)