CHANDLER, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. The appellant's motion for rehearing is granted. The original opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor.
¶ 2. Robert Fowler entered a guilty plea for armed robbery and was sentenced to serve fifteen years in prison. As part of the State's plea bargain agreement, his indictment for attempted murder was passed to the files. After he successfully pursued post-conviction relief, the State pursued charges for both armed robbery and attempted murder. The Oktibbeha County Circuit Court sentenced Fowler to ten years for attempted murder and enhanced Fowler's armed robbery sentence from fifteen years to twenty-two years. Fowler appeals, raising the following issue:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING FOWLER TO A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER HAVING HAD HIS FIRST SENTENCE VACATED
¶ 3. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶ 4. Robert Fowler was indicted for armed robbery and attempted murder. He entered a plea agreement with the State which provided that he would plead guilty to armed robbery and that the State would pass the attempted murder charge to the files and recommend a sentence of fifteen years for armed robbery. The trial court accepted Fowler's guilty plea and sentence recommendation from the State.
¶ 5. Fowler then claimed that his attorney erroneously told Fowler that he would be eligible for parole after serving ten years of his fifteen year sentence. Upon this discovery, Fowler petitioned for post-conviction relief in which he sought to set aside the plea because of this information. The circuit court granted this motion and set aside Fowler's guilty plea.
¶ 6. After Fowler's guilty plea and sentence had been vacated, the State retrieved the attempted murder charge from the files and prepared to try Fowler on both charges. Initially, Fowler decided to plead not guilty to these charges. Accordingly, the State did not offer a plea bargain. Fowler later changed his mind and pleaded guilty to both charges. The circuit court accepted Fowler's guilty pleas and sentenced Fowler to twenty-two years for the armed robbery and ten years for the attempted murder, with the sentences to run concurrently. Fowler now prosecutes this appeal, alleging that the harsher sentences were a result of vindictiveness.
ANALYSIS
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING FOWLER TO A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER HAVING HAD HIS FIRST SENTENCE VACATED
¶ 7. The United States Supreme Court, in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), decided the issue of whether the Constitution limited the imposition of a harsher sentence upon retrial when a prior conviction for the same offense had been set aside and a new trial ordered. The court held that "neither the double jeopardy provision nor the Equal Protection Clause imposes an absolute bar to the more severe sentence upon reconviction." Id. at 723, 89 S.Ct. 2072. The court went on to hold that due process would not allow vindictiveness against a defendant for having attacked his first conviction to play a part in the sentence he receives after a new trial. To assure that such a vindictiveness motivation does not exist, the court requires that the reasons for imposing a harsher sentence must affirmatively appear in the record. Id. at 725-26, 89 S.Ct. 2072.
¶ 8. In Ross v. State, 480 So.2d 1157 (Miss. 1985), the Mississippi Supreme Court adopted the rules of law announced in Pearce. In Ross, the defendant was sentenced to a term of ten years for robbery. Id. at 1158. His motion for a new trial was granted, he was re-tried, and was ordered to serve twelve years after he was re-sentenced. Id. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed that the defendant's harsher sentence was vindictive and should be vacated. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered and substituted the original ten year sentence. Id. at 1161.
¶ 9. The court in Ross issued the following pronouncements and guidelines to insure that a harsher sentence upon re-trial is constitutionally permissible:
1. The imposition of a harsher sentence by a judge following a new trial and conviction for the same charge is not violative of the federal, or Mississippi's, Constitution.
2. Due process of law does require that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial.
3. Due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge.
4. In order to assure that it may be determined on appeal whether such a motive was absent, the following must occur:
(a) The judge must affirmatively state in the record his reasons for the harsher sentence.
(b) The reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant which occurred after the time of the original sentencing proceeding, or based upon objective information concerning events which occurred after the time of the original sentencing proceeding that may have thrown new light upon the defendant's life, health, habits, conduct, or mental and moral propensities.
(c) The factual data upon which the increased sentence is based must be made a part of the record.
(d) This information and data upon which the judge bases his sentence may come to the judge's attention from evidence adduced at the second trial itself, from a new presentencing investigation, from the defendant's prison record, or possibly from other sources.
Id. at 1160-61 (citations omitted).
¶ 10. When Fowler entered his first guilty plea and the judge sentenced Fowler to fifteen years for armed robbery, there was no indication that the judge was aware that the State also indicted Fowler for attempted murder. At the second sentencing hearing the judge was made aware of new evidence that led him to believe that Fowler's conduct was more heinous than he originally realized. Pursuant to the mandates of Ross, this new evidence threw new light upon Fowler's life, health, habits, conduct, and mental or moral propensities. During the second sentencing hearing, the judge for the first time heard evidence that Fowler's accomplice had plans to shoot and kill the clerk of the store which Fowler robbed. At the second sentencing hearing, the State called an expert who testified that the gun used by Fowler had the capacity of killing the store clerk. Fowler's accomplice pulled the trigger, and the State's expert testified that the gun would have fired if the pin had been properly set.
¶ 11. The record shows that the judge used Fowler's conduct concerning his attempted murder of the store clerk in deciding to impose a harsher sentence. The transcript from the second sentencing hearing shows that the hearing focused almost entirely on the culpability of Fowler's attempted murder. The judge linked Fowler's attempted murder charge to the enhanced sentence for the armed robbery charge. "Now, the most culpable defendant is the one with the firearm and the one who tried to kill the clerk, but there is culpability for all that join in this illegal act. The sentence of the law is in Count 1 which is the count of armed robbery that you be sentenced to serve a term of twenty-two years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections." These two statements demonstrate that the judge used Fowler's attempted murder as a justification for the armed robbery charge, based on the new evidence at the hearing.
¶ 12. Although Pearce and Ross remain valid law, both the United States and Mississippi Supreme Courts have limited the scope and application of this law. See Bush v. State, 667 So.2d 26, 29 (Miss. 1996) (citing Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 799, 109 S.Ct. 2201, 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989); Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 138, 106 S.Ct. 976, 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986); Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972)). "The Supreme Court further explained in McCullough, `the evil the [ Pearce] Court sought to prevent' was not the imposition of `enlarged sentences after a new trial' but `vindictiveness of a sentencing judge.'" Id. (quoting McCullough, 475 U.S. at 138, 106 S.Ct. 976).
¶ 13. In Alabama v. Smith, the defendant entered a guilty plea to burglary and rape in exchange for the State's agreement to dismiss the sodomy charge. The trial judge accepted this guilty plea and sentenced the defendant to serve concurrent terms of thirty years for each conviction. The defendant succeeded in having his guilty plea vacated and proceeded to trial on the three original charges. The jury convicted the defendant on all three charges, and the trial judge sentenced him to serve a term of life imprisonment for the burglary conviction, and concurrent term of life imprisonment on the sodomy conviction and a consecutive term of 150 years' imprisonment on the rape conviction. Smith, 490 U.S. at 794, 109 S.Ct. 2201. "The Supreme Court held that there is no presumption of vindictiveness where a second sentence imposed after a trial is heavier than a first sentence imposed after a guilty plea. Certainly, a judge who hears the defendant, the victim, and other circumstances of the crime at trial is entitled to impose a higher sentence than the judge who hears only the admission of guilt at a plea hearing." Bush, 667 So.2d at 29 (citing Smith, 490 U.S. at 803, 109 S.Ct. 2201).
¶ 14. This Court recognizes the differences between Bush and the case sub judice. In Bush, unlike this case, a second judge imposed the defendant's second sentence, and the second judge heard evidence from a full trial rather than a sentencing hearing. Id. at 29-30. Nevertheless, we find Bush to be instructive. In Fowler's second sentencing hearing, the judge heard new evidence concerning the events of Fowler's crimes, and this evidence led the judge to believe that the crime was more heinous than the judge originally believed. Although the judge did not explicitly state that he was imposing a harsher sentence for armed robbery because of the new evidence at the sentencing hearing, the judge did impose this enhanced sentence immediately after declaring that Fowler was guilty of attempted murder. In Smith, 490 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2201, the Supreme Court held that the presumption of vindictiveness must be limited to those situations in which there is a "`reasonable likelihood' that the increase in sentence is the product of actual vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing authority. When there is no such reasonable likelihood, the burden of proof remains on the defendant" (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 373, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982)). Under these particular facts, we are unable to find that the circuit judge's enhanced sentence for armed robbery was the result of vindictiveness. Therefore, we affirm.
¶ 15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OKTIBBEHA COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF COUNT I ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY TWO YEARS AND COUNT II ATTEMPTED MURDER AND SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO OKTIBBEHA COUNTY.
BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., MYERS AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY KING, C.J. BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.