The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the lower court did not impose a vindictive sentence. The lower court re-sentenced the defendant after the Superior Court vacated the defendant’s original sentence. The aggregate of the new sentence decreased considerably, though the court imposed increased penalties on two counts of Aggravated Assault. The defendant appealed, arguing that the lower court’s harsher punishment on those two counts resulted from the court’s vindictiveness. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. The Court held that the lower court increased the penalties for Aggravated Assault “not out of vindictiveness, but in an attempt to achieve as much as possible the purpose and effect of its original sentencing scheme.” And for the same reason, the Superior Court ruled that the new sentence did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
