Sentencing-Vindictiveness

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Rodney Lass v. Jason Wells

Case No.: 23-2880

Officials: Scudder, St. Eve, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing-Vindictiveness

Lass was initially charged with misdemeanor domestic abuse, but the case ended in a mistrial due to the alleged victim’s disregard of a court order. Subsequently, prosecutors refiled the case, adding multiple felony counts. Lass was ultimately found guilty on most charges and received a 40-year prison sentence. He argued that the additional charges constituted unconstitutional vindictive prosecution, alleging they were brought in retaliation for his pursuit and obtaining of a mistrial in the misdemeanor case.

Lass pursued post-conviction relief first in Wisconsin state court and later in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that Lass had not presented sufficient facts to establish a presumption of vindictiveness or actual vindictiveness. The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to review the case.

In federal district court, Lass’s application under § 2254 was also unsuccessful. The district court determined that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals had not applied a presumption of vindictiveness, which it found was not contrary to established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The district court additionally dismissed Lass’s two remaining claims as procedurally defaulted.

On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Lass’s claims were considered procedurally defaulted. The court affirmed the district court’s handling of these claims and found no grounds for federal habeas relief under § 2254(d) regarding Lass’s vindictive prosecution assertion. The court concluded that the reasoning of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not contradict or unreasonably apply established U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/26/24

Full Text