The Supreme Court addressed the presumption of judicial vindictiveness in Texas v. McCullough (1986), 475 U.S. 134, 106 S.Ct. 976, 89 L. Ed. 2d 104: "Beyond doubt, vindictiveness of a sentencing judge is the evil the Court sought to prevent rather simply enlarged sentences after a new trial." Id. at 138. With regard to new information, the court stated that "nothing in the Constitution requires a judge to ignore 'objective information justifying the increased sentence.'" Id. at 142. The court "recognized the state's legitimate interest 'in dealing in a harsher manner with those who by repeated criminal acts have shown that they are simply incapable of conforming to the norms of society as established by its criminal laws.'" Id. at 144. The court held that the 50-year sentence imposed upon McCullough for murder by the trial judge after retrial was not the result of vindictiveness even though the jury at the first trial had imposed a sentence of only 20 years. In increasing the sentence, the trial judge relied on new evidence that was not presented at the first trial, including the fact that McCullough had been released from prison only four months before committing murder.