State ex rel. Lee v. Whitley

In re Lee, Robert; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 25,136; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 23323-KW. Denied. Correction of relator’s sentence to reflect that it runs without parole eligibility does not support a presumption of vindictiveness under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). The requirement of law that relator must serve his sentence without parole represents a “wholly logical, non-vindictive reason ...,’” negating any presumption of vindictiveness. State v. Lucas, 598 So.2d 338 (La.1992) [quoting Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 140 , 106 S.Ct. 976, 980 , 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986)].