State v. Trotter, 2014 Ohio 3588

In 2009, Trotter was charged with four counts of rape, two counts of kidnapping, eleven counts related to alleged child pornography, and two counts of corrupting another with drugs.
A bench trial in January 2010 proceeded, but the court suppressed computer-evidence after a sua sponte jurisdictional issue; the state appealed and this court reversed.
At trial in February 2011, the state dismissed the corrupting-with-drugs counts; Trotter was convicted of multiple rape and kidnapping counts and acquitted of the child-pornography counts, receiving a total 60-year sentence.
On direct appeal, this court held that allied-offense doctrine required merger of allied counts, remanding for resentencing, which the trial court performed in August 2012 and imposed 20 years total (two ten-year sentences consecutive).
Trotter appealed again arguing lack of proper HB 86 findings for consecutive sentences; this court remanded to consider HB 86 and proper record findings.
In September 2013, after resentencing, the trial court imposed ten years on each of Counts 1 and 2, with the sentences run consecutively for a total 20-year term after making the required findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the resentencing process vindictive against Trotter?	State contends no vindictiveness; sentence did not exceed original and lacked punitive motive.	Trotter asserts the court demonstrated vindictiveness by resentencing harsher or with improper mindset.	No presumption of vindictiveness; no improper motive established.
Did the court err by not weighing prison conduct in resentencing under HB 86?	State argues HB 86 allows court to consider sentencing goals; no requirement to consider prison conduct.	Trotter contends the court should have considered his institutional conduct in determining consecutive sentences.	Court did not abuse discretion by declining to weight prison conduct.

State v. Bonnell, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3177 (Ohio 2014) (HB 86 sentencing framework and purposes)
State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92365 (2009-Ohio-4995) (discretion to consider prison conduct at de novo resentencing)
State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91346 (2009-Ohio-1610) (courts not required to consider incarcerated conduct on resentencing)
State v. Walker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97648 (2012-Ohio-4274) (HB 86 purposes and sentencing framework)
State v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (vindictiveness presumption on remand for resentencing)
State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92365 (2009-Ohio-4995) (discretion to consider prison conduct at resentencing)