Ortiz Rivera, Yoel v. D Desarrollo Economico Y Comercio

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that due process “requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge[;] [Otherwise, the defendant will be chilled in the exercise of his right to challenge a conviction or sentence”
• insufficient evidence in the record that petitioner elected to apply an unfavorable rule at parole board hearing; therefore state did not rebut presumption of vindictiveness
• insufficient evidence in the record that petitioner elected to apply an unfavorable rule at parole board hearing; therefore state did not rebut presumption of vindictiveness
• “We have held that no reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists unless there is some ‘triggering event,’ such as a reversal and remand.”
• same for the Missouri Parole Board, and the Eighth Circuit expressly refused to decide the present issue
• the 7 deferential standard of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) does 8 not apply when the state court does not issue a decision on the merits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).