note that there is’ evidence in this record as to the reason for the disparity between the State’s plea offer and the sentences imposed. The State specifically stated at the time it' offered the plea that the offer was based on its desire to shield the victim, who was eight years old at the time of trial, from having to testify. The State’s explanation is further supported by the child’s age and the fact that the victim was permitted to testify via closed-circuit television to minimize the emotional and psychological trauma. The disparity between the State’s pre-trial plea offer and the sentence imposed by the trial court after trial, standing alone, does not create a presumption of vindictiveness nor ' require resentencing. See Redmond v. State, 970 So.2d 915, 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Pagnotti v. State, 821 So.2d 466, 468 (Fla.
holding that the imposition of a harsher sentence after trial than what had been offered by the state pretrial does not create a presumption of vindictiveness holding that a judge who imposes a more severe sentence after the original sentence is successfully attacked must affirmatively state objective reasons for the harsher sentence to ensure that vindictiveness against the defendant plays no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial holding that intervening conduct may be used to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness holding that likelihood of vindictiveness does not exist where the court imposing the increased sentence has not been required to do so by another court holding that the presumption of vindictiveness only applies when the new sentence is actually harsher than that imposed prior to the successful appeal