No Judicial Vindictiveness Shown Where, On Remand after One Count Dismissed, Trial Court Imposed Same Sentence

Eldridge v. Berkebile, 2015 WL 3953701 (6/30/15) (Col.) (Published) - In a § 2241 proceeding, the 10th holds Mr. Eldridge did not establish a presumption of vindictiveness where: on appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed all Mr. Eldridge's convictions, except one burglary conviction (it dismissed that one count because defense counsel had not adequately explained the sentence ramifications of a guilty plea to that count); on remand the trial court imposed the same aggregate sentence for all the counts, explaining that, if the court gave a lower sentence, Mr. Eldridge would escape punishment for a burglary that was instrumental in the forcible rape that followed. The 10th explains that the S. Ct. has narrowed considerably the import of the judicial vindictiveness case of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), Since the trial court did not increase the sentence, Pearce does not apply.