of counsel. He claims only that Judge Moore abused his discretion in sentencing [Taylor] to a sentence authorized by law.” The State agrees that the Motion Court’s rejection of Taylor’s Motion on either of these bases was legal error. Taylor’s Motion did not contest the revocation of his probation. The Motion contested the legality of the sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation, and argued that the harshest sentence possible was imposed “only because [Taylor] exercised his constitutional right to challenge a condition of probation in the Supreme Court of Missouri.” It is unconstitutional to use enhanced sentencing to punish or penalize a defendant who exercises his constitutional rights. See United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968) (<HOLDING>) (cited with approval in Thurston v. State, 791
holding that practice which discourages exercise of fifth or sixth amendment rights by penalizing through enhanced sentencing the exercise of those rights is unconstitutional holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment