Were John Gilcrease's due process rights violated when the court imposed a more onerous, consecutive sentence after his original sentence was vacated and remanded?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Were John Gilcrease’s due process rights violated when, after his plea and original sentence for obstruction of justice that exceeded the maximum statutory term was vacated and remanded, the court imposed a more onerous, consecutive sentence? Does the harsher sentence violate his right to appeal and conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1969) concerning the presumption of judicial vindictiveness? Particularly where the State had not objected to or appealed the concurrent sentences originally imposed, did increasing the sentence on remand by ordering that it be served consecutively violate due process? Where on remand, after originally imposing a sentence beyond statutory limits, the district court failed to articulate any objective information concerning conduct on the part of defendant occurring subsequent to the original sentencing, did the Court violate John Gilcrease’s due process rights by adding the condition of consecutive sentences to the sentence? Did the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal err in affirming an increased sentence on remand in a case where the defendant entered a plea and there was no new information on remand? Did the Louisiana Supreme Court err in denying discretionary review? -i