State v. A. Twardoski

Summary

The Court affirmed Twardoski’s convictions and sentence. It declined to review his ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal because the record did not explain counsel’s failure to object and supported plausible tactical justifications. The Court held that the increased sentence imposed after retrial did not violate due process because a different judge resentenced him, the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply, and Twardoski failed to prove actual vindictiveness.