Document: 474 U.S. 28 106 S.Ct. 353 88 L.Ed.2d 183 PENNSYLVANIAv.Benjamin GOLDHAMMER. No. 84-1852. Nov. 12, 1985. PER CURIAM. 1 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held below that the Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment United States Constitution barred resentencing respondent. 507 Pa. 236, 489 A.2d 1307 (1985). We grant certiorari, and, on basis our decision in v. DiFrancesco, 449 117, 101 426, 66 328 (1980), we reverse and remand. motion respondent for leave to proceed forma pauperis is granted. 2 Respondent was convicted Philadelphia Common Pleas 56 counts forgery theft. He sentenced by trial court two-to-five years imprisonment a single theft count five probation one counts. Sentence suspended remaining 3 appealed all 112 convictions Superior Pennsylvania. That ruled statute limitations prosecution 34 counts, including which had received his sentence imprisonment. 4 On appeal Commonwealth, affirmed Court's ruling limitations. In addition, denied petitioner's request case be remanded 22 acknowledged defendant could twice same when there an intervening retrial at defendant, but it were after Commonwealth another vacated. Pa., 248-251, A.2d, 1314-1315, citing North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 23 656 (1969). 5 rationale inconsistent with holding this supra. DiFrancesco upheld constitutionality 18 U.S.C. § 3576, allows appeals given "dangerous special offender" district court, affirm sentence, impose different or remand further sentencing proceedings. 6 noted decisions "clearly establish sentenc[ing noncapital case] does not have qualities constitutional finality attend acquittal." supra, U.S., 134, S.Ct., 436. more severely than first trial. Any distinction between situation Pearce "no 'conceptual nicety.' " 136, 437 (quoting 722, 2079). Indeed, intrudes even less upon values protected retrial: 7 "[T]he basic design double jeopardy provision [is to] bar . repeated attempts convict, consequent subjection embarrassment, expense, anxiety, insecurity, possibility he may found guilty though innocent. These considerations, however, no significant application prosecution's statutorily granted right review sentence. This limited involve approximate ordeal issue guilt innocence." 437. 8 federal clearly allowed appellate sentences issue. that, light statute, claim any expectation original sentencing. 139, 437-38. Here, because Clause, need consider whether laws effect time State obtain been suspended. determination issue, consideration 9 Reversed remanded. 10 Justice BRENNAN dissents from summary disposition would vote deny petition. 11 MARSHALL disposition, has ordered without affording parties prior notice opportunity file briefs merits. See Maggio Fulford, 462 111, 120-121, 103 2261, 2265-66, 76 794 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Wyrick Fields, 459 42, 51-52, 394, 398, 74 214 (1982) dissenting). 12 BLACKMUN petition set argument. 13 STEVENS, dissenting. 14 permitted Government certain sentences. Today, summarily reverses finds "Pennsylvania DiFrancesco." Ante, 29. 15 opinion mention DiFrancesco. before did case, however.1 Mr. Goldhammer argued govern precisely authorized government conviction sentencing.2 raised argument response Commonwealth's petition.3 Moreover, should unlike prosecutor made attempt take imposed court. its reply, adequately addressed these points. 16 majority recognizes court's judgment ultimately supported state-law grounds. ante, 30-31. view uncertainty, failure address important I simply certiorari.4 presume determined plausible reason it. 17 Three factors support presumption. First, Pennsylvania's current statutory framework permitting place Goldhammer's sentencing.5 Second, courts are now applying new framework,6 full knowledge DiFrancesco.7 Third, perhaps most importantly, assume familiar precedents own State's law. Because majority's reversal reflects contrary assumption, respectfully dissent. Brief Appellant CR 84-1852, p. 13, n. 3; Appellee pp. 13-15. Id., ("At instant arose Pennsylvania, exist until guidelines approved July, 1982. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9781"). Opposition 9, here, sentences"). Rule 21.5 ("The petitioner present accuracy, brevity, clearness whatever essential ready adequate understanding points requiring will sufficient denying petition"). Pa.Cons.Stat. 9781 (1982); 204 Pa.Code 303.1 et seq. (1982), reproduced following Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 9721 (Purdon 1982). See, e.g., Dixon, 344 Pa.Super. 293, 496 802 (1985); Hutchinson, 343 596, 495 956 Drumgoole, 341 468, 491 1352 477, 2, 1356, ("Appellee also suggests relief sought 'would appear violation Constitutional guarantee against jeopardy.' resolved appellee's claim. 117. .").

Category: 0