Claude Hudson’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery and child molestation were previously remanded for resentencing because the convictions should have merged. On remand, the trial court increased the custodial portion of Hudson’s child-molestation sentence from 10 years to 25 years, although the total sentence after merger was not more severe under an aggregate comparison. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed and remanded again. Applying North Carolina v. Pearce, the court held that Georgia’s controlling approach remained count-by-count because the contrary aggregate approach had appeared only in a Supreme Court plurality opinion. Under that method, Hudson’s prison term on the surviving count increased by 15 years, triggering a presumption of vindictiveness. The trial court could overcome the presumption only with objective information concerning conduct occurring after the original sentencing. Its stated reasons—the victim’s age, the family relationship, the prior offense, and punishment for the original conduct—already existed at the first sentencing and therefore could not justify the increase. Judge Ray, joined by Judge Branch, concurred specially, agreeing with the result but arguing that an aggregate approach better reflects sentencing of interdependent counts. The case was remanded for a lawful resentencing.