Document: 395 U.S. 711 89 S.Ct. 2072 23 L.Ed.2d 656 State of NORTH CAROLINA et al., Petitioners,v.Clifton A. PEARCE. Curtis M. SIMPSON, Warden, Petitioner, v. William S. RICE. Nos. 413 and 418. Argued Feb. 24, 1969. June 23, [Syllabus from pages 711-712 intentionally omitted] Andrew Vanore, Jr., Raleigh, N.C., for petitioners North Carolina others. Larry B. Sitton, Greensboro, respondent, Pearce. Paul T. Gish, Montgomery, Ala., petitioner, Simpson. Thomas Lawson, Rice. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 When at behest defendant a criminal conviction has been set aside new trial ordered, to what extent does Constitution limit imposition harsher sentence after upon retrial? That is question presented by these two cases. 2 In No. respondent Pearce was convicted in court charge assault with intent commit rape. The judge sentenced him prison term 12 15 years. Several years later he initiated state post-conviction proceeding which culminated reversal his Supreme Court Carolina, ground that an involuntary confession had unconstitutionally admitted evidence against him, 266 N.C. 234, 145 S.E.2d 918. He retried, convicted, eight-year term, which, when added time already spent prison, parties agree amounted longer total than originally imposed.1 were affirmed on appeal. 268 707, 151 571. then began this habeas corpus United States District Eastern Carolina. held, authority very recent Fourth Circuit decision, Patton 381 F.2d 636, cert. denied, 390 905, 88 818, 19 871, imposed retrial 'unconstitutional void.'2 Upon failure resentence within 60 days, federal ordered release. This order Appeals Circuit, 397 253, brief per curiam judgment citing its we granted certiorari. 393 922, 28 , 21 258. 3 418 Rice pleaded guilty Alabama four separate charges second-degree burglary. terms aggregating 10 years.3 Two one-half judgments coram nobis proceeding, not accorded constitutional right counsel. See Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799. retried three charges, 25 years.4 No credit given original judgments. brought Middle Alabama, alleging acted failing give served imposing grossly sentences retrial. Judge Frank Johnson, agreed both contentions. While stating did 'not believe it constitutionally impermissible impose if there recorded record some legal justification it,' Johnson found denied due process law, because '(u) nder case, conclusion inescapable punishing petitioner having exercised review declared unconstitutional.' 274 F.Supp. 116, 121, 122. Fifth 'on basis Johnson's opinion,' 396 499, 500, 932, 292, 268. 4 problem before us5 involves related but analytically issues. One concerns limitations more severe punishment same offense other limited whether, computing sentence, requires must be part served. second Pearce, appears law full all under previous sentence. Stafford, 519, 164 371; Paige, 272 417, 158 522; Weaver, 264 681, 142 633. any event, such credit.6 however, seems reflect different view. Aaron State, 43 Ala.App. 450, 192 So.2d 456; Ex parte Merkes, 640, 198 789.7 And Rice, being resentenced, no th prison. 5 We turn first aspect us—whether that, retrial, consider broader may reconviction. I. 6 held today, Benton Maryland, 784, 2056, Amendment guarantee double jeopardy enforceable through Fourteenth Amendment. said consist protections.8 It protects prosecution acquittal.9 conviction.10 multiple punishments offense.11 last protection necessarily implicated consideration endured. stated controlling principle almost 100 ago, landmark case Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 168, L.Ed. 872: 7 'If anything settled jurisprudence England America, man can twice lawfully punished offence. * never doubt (this rule's) entire complete party proposed court, facts, statutory offense. 8 '* (T)he designed as much prevent tried it.' Id., 173. think clear basic violated exacted fully 'credited' violation flagrantly apparent involving maximum Suppose, example, jurisdiction where allowable larceny years' imprisonment, succeeds getting serving If, reconviction, 10-year then, quite clearly, will have received For compelled serve years, although single imprisonment. Though so dramatically evident, obviously holds true whenever endured subtracted imposed.12 hold absolutely 'credited'13 trial, acquitted, way returned him. But reconvicted, those returned—by subtracting them whatever imposed. II. 11 To reduced is, partial answer us.14 turn, therefore, general power reconviction received. Long-established doctrine makes beyond requirement discussed, imposes restrictions length At least since 1896, Ball, 163 662, 16 1192, 41 300, decidd retry who succeeded aside.15 'The provision preclude Government's retrying whose error proceedings leading well-established our jurisprudence.' Tateo, 377 463, 465, 84 1587, 1589, 448. 1919, Stroud States, 251 15, 40 50, 64 103, decided, corollary power, defendant's legally authorized, whether or greater conviction.16 'That overturned collateral rather direct attack irrelevant purposes, see Robinson Cir., 144 392, 396, 397, aff'd another ground, 324 282, 65 666, 944.' supra, 466, S.Ct., 1589. 13 Although rationale 'well-established jurisprudence' variously verbalized, rests ultimately premise has, behest, wholly nullified slate wiped clean. As actually suffered conviction, course, unmitigated fiction, recognized Part I opinion.17 But, far itself goes, yet served, simple statement fact say unexpired portion A result acquittal. cannot own weight restricts otherwise lawful question. contrary would cast whole validity enunciated unbroken line decisions followed 75 are entirely sound, decline depart concept they reflect.18 14 argument advanced support proposition forbids grounded Equal Protection Clause theory convicts do seek trials their increased, creates invidious classification risk only succeed convictions aside. argument, while lacking ingenuity, withstand close examination. place, deal here, increases existing sentences, trials. Putting conceptual nicety one side, us simply rationally dealt 'classifications.' acquitted. If receive shorter depend particular combination infinite variables peculiar each individual trial. invidiously 'classified' successfully trials, prisoners denying members group opportunity fit into equal framework task too Procrustean accomplished. C. hold, neither nor absolute bar precluded, words, less light events subsequent thrown 'life, health, habits, conduct, mental moral propensities.' Williams New York, 337 241, 245, 69 1079, 1082, 93 1337. Such information come judge's attention adduced itself, presentence investigation, record, possibly sources. freedom sentencing conduct consonant principle, approved adopt 'prevalent modern philosophy penology should offender merely crime.' 247, 1083. exists not, end inquiry. There remain impact Due Process 17 hardly doubted flagrant follow announced practice heavier every reconvicted explicit purpose Where, cases us, error, punishment, 'penalizing choose exercise' rights, 'would patently Jackson, 570, 581, 1209, 1216, 20 138. threat inherent existence punitive policy would, respect still 'chill exercise rights.' 582, 1216. also Griffin California, 380 609, 85 1229, 106; cf. Avery, 483, 747, 718. even nonconstitutional penalty pursued appeal remedy law.19 'A enhanced based reason, rights defendant.' Nichols 106 F. 672, 679. 'without put price free unfettered. (I)t unfair use great determine place dilemma making unfree choice.' Worcester Commissioner Internal Revenue, 370 713, Short 120 U.S.App.D.C. 165, 167, 344 550, 552. 'This required establish avenues appellate review, now fundamental once established, kept unreasoned distinctions impede open access courts. Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 891; Douglas 353, 814, 811; Lane Brown, 477, 768, 892; Draper Washington, 487, 774, 899.' Rinaldi Yeager, 384 305, 310 311, 86 1497, 1500—1501, 577. vindictiveness attacked play receives fear deter collaterally freed apprehension retaliatory motivation judge.20 assure absence motivation, concluded reasons doing affirmatively appear. Those objective concerning identifiable occurring proceeding. factual data increased made legitimacy reviewed dispose conclusions. noted 'the offers attempting justify increase Rice's *.' F.Supp., 121. 'shocking attempted explain punishment—in cases, over threefold.' 121—122. situation clear. Nonetheless, remains stage offered reason naked it. conclude affirmed. ordered. 22 Judgment DOUGLAS, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 24 reach process, go further. my view time, exceed penalty, i jeopardy. person need run gantlet once. range Federal Government conduct. year life, death. risks permissible tried. faced again. takes waive defense former prosecution. Green 355 184, 191—193, 78 221, 225, 227, 199. 26 charged arson count either first-degree murder carrying mandatory death life jury verdict silent murder. appealed obtained reversal. On remand death—hence complaint applied defendant, 'in peril degree trial' could 'forced gantlet' twice. 190, 225. 27 argued crimes provided statute one. That, matter semantics. 'It immaterial Legislature divides crime degrees allows fix People Henderson, Cal.2d 482, 497, 35 Cal.Rptr. 77, 86, 386 P.2d 677, 686 (1963) (Traynor, J.). From point liberty, here specified imprisonment capital Indeed, well understood dissenters Green: 29 'As practical matter, human values, scarcely possible distinguish name previously carries significantly namely imprisonment.' U.S., 213, 237 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).1 30 defendants present less. twice, today penalties increased. 31 established early date accused running 'double punishment.' Ewell, 383 11, 124, 773, 778, 627. Madison introduced First Congress draft became Double Jeopardy Clause, read: 32 'No shall subject, except impeachment, offence (Emphasis supplied.) Annals Cong. 434. 33 phrasing proposal changed feared reference 'one might obtaining writ error. 753. change intended alter ban punishment. Sigler, History Jeopardy, Am.J.Legal Hist. 283, 304—306 (1963). 34 'By forbidding 'be subject limb,' (the safeguard punishment) guarded repetition history (a man) Roberts 320 264, 276, 113, 119, dissenting).2 inquiry, meaning 'double' 'multiple' 872, one-year $200 fines, providing fines. five days later, re-examined prior reset it, instead, without Court, certiorari, discharged altogether. reasoned fine. Because paid fine, subjected further sanction: 36 though nice questions application rule act definition offence, bring offence.' 168. 37 Lange left somewhat doubt, situations completely served; until Benz, 282 304, 51 354, clarified position. initially months, six months. appealed, certified reduction Clause: 38 judgments, decrees orders control during made. confined civil applies well, augmented. 167—174, 872 (additional citations omitted). mitigate thus limia tion. 39 distinction amend lost latter *. decision supra.' supplied). 306, 307, 114. governing developed successful appeal, Bryan 338 552, 70 317, 94 335; risk, receiving imposed, 300; offense, Oklahoma, 358 576, 79 421, 516. deference submit chance obtain enlarged sentence.3 Where attacks 'fully served' (Street 394 1354, 572), create additional send back supra. Similarly, begun serve, sending term.4 roots deep occidental jurisprudence. 'Fear abhorence governmental try people oldest ideas western civilization.' Bartkus 359 151—155, 676, 696, 684 (Black, dissenting). purposes several. prevents using processes instrument harassment wear out multitude accumulated Abbate 187, 198—199, 672—673, 729 (opinion Brennan, 42 serves precluding following acquittal, successively hope securing conviction. vice procedure lies relitigating issue juries man's innocence guilt stake' conclusion.' Hoag Jersey, 356 464, 474, 475, 829, 836, 913 (Warren, C.J., 'Harassment successive prosecutions declaration mistrial afford favorable convict examples attaches.' Downum 734, 736, 1033, 1034, 100. finally, again penalty. 44 presents instance allowed harass repeated evidence, achieves desired verdict.' Ciucci 571, 573, 839, 840, 983 (Douglas, 45 relevant 46 'Why guilty, offence? Manifestly danger guilty. real Constitution. rendered executed criminal, endure restriction value? 47 irresistible, 173, 872. 48 prohibit resentencing bald favorable5 verdict. 707. appealing convictions, just that. trial6 Of course true. true, too, case. Does mean h reopen readjust coming forward punishment? why taken initiative seeking error-free trial? doubtless interest adjusting upward discovers warranting result. remaining weighing interests another, decided favor individual. 1594, 448 (Goldberg, 49 BLACK, concurring dissenting part. 50 Respondent rape prison; burglary After several used witness himself; because, indigent, court-appointed lawyer plea. Both respondents convicted.1 effect eight prohibits denial Court's rejection respondents' claims violate Clauses settled, correctly notes, Nor discrimination subjecting o all. must, like others according normally inquiry background, disposition, prospects rehabilitation appropriate Accordingly, re-evaluation generally permits retrials finds appropriate, higher lower set. 52 goes on, 'state aside.' Ante, 723-724. means, take permit appeals make win plainly deny implies believes 'unfair' practice. enactment statutes side encouraging granting idea government law. ambiguity, uncertainty, impossible citizens know conflicting laws follow, principles process. moreover, accordance valid land. laws, constitutional, aside, deprived property reasons, taking supposed 'unfairness.' Since legislative judicial solely 53 plausible upholding setting 'shocking' show greatly punishment—namely, 25-year circumstances, appeared find specific invoking remedies. distance ordinarily finding benefit accept Judge's punish challenging reluctance, affirm provides affirming 413, slightest inference wanted relief. Indeed shows meticulously computed jail tm e.2 54 justifies release language: 55 'In appeal.' 726. 56 nothing grants here. Punishment described said, clearly unconstitutional, courts find, normal fact-finding, exists. this, vested prescribe devices '(i)n motivation.' Numerous mechanisms thought of, function. Yet detailed spelled required, remedial not. pure legislation ever legislation. 57 about enact § Amendment, reads: 58 enforce, legislation, provisions article.' 59 enacted, articulate only, repeal fact, supplementing willing congressional substitutes supposedly 'constitutional' enacts. So despite says 'must appeal,' unconvinced legitimately add commands Apart possibility action prompted motives particularly poor holding rules binding improper present. specially race, religion, political views. counsel, insisted jury, refused admit kind instances be, stated, unconstitutional. suggested motivation,' could, constitutionl judges spell detail 'affirmatively appear,' basing 'objective conduct.' connection record.' contrary, 1337 (1949), refusing limitations, hamstring penological reforms, continued reaffirm decision. See, e.g., Specht Patterson, 605, 87 326 (1967). many perfectly legitimate instance, Without lawyer, shown happened difficult see. common knowledge prosecutors frequently trade recommend low return pleas Judges agreements carefully scrutinizing defendant. needs little imagination infer precisely explains examination called for. will—unfortunately, think, defendants—throw stumbling blocks similar beneficial future. Moreover, hereafter cause preserve authorized discretion reversals convictions. 61 firmly adhere leaving sentencing. 418, motivated considerations. promulgate reverse reinstate 62 thought. semantic difference between view—that guarantees persons pursuant passed it—and opposing decide constitutionality concepts fairness, justice, Anglo-American heritage.' Sniadach Family Finance Corp., 337, 343, 1820, 1823, 349 (Harlan, concurring). elsewhere, views comes means day day, generation generation, century century, fairest best people. Deciding ambiguous self-contradictory violates cry independent selected, wants one, compulsory witnesses, See,e .g., Chambers Florida, 309 235 237, 240—241, 472, 478—479, 716 (1940); ex rel. Toth Quarles, 350 1, (1955). me written Founders unwritten constitution formulated fairness case-by-case basis. therefore dissent affirmance 63 HARLAN, Were judged traditional confines should, difficulty, myself substantial agreement reached However, dissent, applicable Clause. usual Term expressed Term, proceed important turned otherwise. Given Benton, 199 (1957), dissented points strongly Brother 726, 2089, governs issues presently join opinion, concur II, minor respect.1 66 lesser included indictment, thereafter secures reversal, Frankfurter observed, joined, that: 67 (increased) 237. 68 Further reflection decade meaningfully distinguished. Every force bar. determined maximum. id., fiction 'implicit acquittal' ibid., equally sentence: certain 'badness' gravity merited Most significantly, perhaps, considering 'incredible dilemma' confront 'desperate' choice. 193, 227. His burdened success,2 worse position remained seemed unjust punishment.3 Green, chance, purposeful retaliation renders choice 'desperate.' practicality, consequences effected guise augmentation factors render route forbidden Clause? comprehend 'sentences'—as distinguished 'offenses' long prisoner commences service vacating 306—307, 114, 354 (1931); (1874). 71 suggest otherwise,4 view, apparently, consequent behest,5 'slate clean,' ante, 721, proposition, relies chiefly 103 (1919), 300 (1896). adequate seemingly incongruous conclusion. 72 could,u pon explicitly advert bars briefs confirms 644 (1967), squarely Court.6 Assuming stood majority attributes squared (1957). (dissenting opinion); 677 73 rest doubtful precedent, however. Its main Ball,' (1896), progeny. 721. 74 Ball simply, formerly convicted. indeed, jurisprudence, undermine speak fail understand suggestion, unless assumes stand fall question-begging notion quote clean.'7 relying forgets usually spite fact. 193—194, 199: 746: erroneous protected placed suffering exaltation form substance policy, misconceives, essential itself: 'While theories permissibility importance abstractions employed implications sound administration justice. Corresponding fair societal high indeed society pay immunity defect sufficient constitute reversible conviction.' (1964). 77 sure, compromised meted facts develop initial considered aggravation By token, prosecutor able prove improve interim acquire degree. vacuum, due. compromise protect interests, Clause.8 consistent vacate finish first, n. WHITE, 80 II—C authorize objective, known approximate expiration assuming allowances good behavior, November 13, October 10, 1972. Patton, 'increasing Patton's constitutes unconstitutional condition arbitrarily offense.' F.2d, 646. count, counts, consecutively. fourth third dropped motion prosecution, apparently chief State. results dealing presented. addition Marano 374 583 (C.A.1st Cir.); Coke, 404 836 (C.A.2d Starner Russell, 378 808 (C.A.3d White, 382 445 (C.A.7th Walsh 421 (C.A.9th Newman Rodriguez, 375 712 (C.A.10th Cir.). unanimous. most seem problem, limits few prohibited 677; Ali, 277, 348, 424 932; Turner, 247 Or. 301, 429 565; Wolf, N.J. 216 A.2d 586, A.L.R.3d 970; Leonard, Wis.2d 461, 159 N.W.2d 'THE COURT: intention fifteen Prison; records available Prison Department months flat gain combined, passing IT IS THE JUDGMENT State's period years.' indicates require 'Without fixed indictment.' Goolsby 283 Ala. 269, 215 602. Note, Twice Yale L.J. 262, 265—266 (1965). re Nielsen, 131 176, 118. 872; 354; Sacco, 367 368; Adams, 362 210; Ken edy 330 26. spoken fine Any decreased amount paid. include credited etc. situations, account, us. given. 6, given, been, 1/2 counts burglary, Code, Tit. 14, (1958). 103; Forman 361 416, 481, 412; upheld claim violated. Murphy Massachusetts, 177 155, 639, 711; 944, 392. 199, applicability problem. provision's Cf. King App.D.C. 12—13, 98 291, 293—294: suggests, vein Mikado, void appellant 'has penitentiary;' imprisoned was, all.' e en standpoint zealous protecting effects improprieties pretrial knew irrevocably reality, defendants' society's interest.' Van Alstyne, Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties 'Successful' Criminal Appellant, 606 (1965); Unconstitutional Conditions, Harv.L.Rev. 1595 (1960). extremely collected rare. Constitutional Law: Increased Sentence Denial Credit Retrial Sustained Under Traditional Waiver Theory, 1965 Duke 395. touching bit showing vindictive 256 quoted letter recently prisoner: 'Dear Sir: 'I am Mecklenburg County jail. _ chose re-try would. 'Sir hav probability you sir trile usuelly prosedure larger guess discourage Petitioners. 'Your Honor, don't want afraid help God knows apreceate please let Very truly yours' 231, 7. 'With emerging broad technical applying follows: selected prescribed impliedly 'acquitting' acquitted 606, 634—635 'Our minds rebel permitting sovereignty Louisiana Francis Resweber, 329 459, 462, 374, 375, 91 422 Reed, 584—586, 426—427, read strict standard. equalize individual, abusive awesome society. Once starts attaches. performance Bill Rights rare occasions citizen arbitrariness where, puts it—on Government.' Gori 364, 372—373, 81 1523, 1528, 901 contrary. involved 'it indictment indication clause stands entitle reprosecution.' 644—645 (C.A.4th Cir. 1967). vitiated Other ones raise 392 (C.A.6th 1944), aff'd, necessary Fay Noia, 391, 440, 822, 849, 837; loose standard lieu uncompromising dictates Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 149, 82 288; Francisv . 422. Among courts, jeopardy, 636 1967); 210 1966). unnecessary resolve indicated properly presented, Compare 1967), Jack 387 471 Castle 399 642 (C.A.5th 1968). Still circuits unavailing justified newly revealed 1968); supported standards rational sentencing, absent penalize judge, 550 similarly mixed. An reflects 262 52, 136 205 (1963); 'chilling effect' 'to correct erroneously conducted trial.' 970 (1966), 313, 565, 570 'as policy,' Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 296, 161 650, 652 (1968), statute, Rush 239 Ark. 878, S.W.2d Some evidently Mulier, Mich.App. 28, 162 292; Thiel, A.D.2d 913, 289 N.Y.S.2d 879; 577 (1968). unwilling ceiling allow Tilghman Culver, 99 (Fla.1957) (based jeopardy); Moore Parole Board, 379 Mich. 624, 154 437 (1967) local statute); Muldrew Boles, W.Va. protection); Gray Hocker, 1004 (D.C.Nev.1967) Hill Holman, 255 924 (D.C.M.D.Ala.1966) process). regime, governed U.S.C. 3568. limit, Barnes, 329, 208 238 (1968); Kohlfuss Warden Connecticut Prison, 149 Conn. 692, 183 626 (1962); Bohannon Columbia, 647 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App.1953); Salisbury Grimes, 223 Ga. 776, 412 (1967); Kneeskern, 203 Iowa 929, N.W. 465 (1926); Morgan, La. So. (1919); Young, 200 Kan. 20, 434 820 Hobbs 231 Md. 533, 191 Moon 250 468, 243 564 Hicks Commonwealth, 345 Mass. 89, 185 N.E.2d 739 Sanders Miss. 874, 125 923, A.L.R.2d 481 (1961); Commonwealth Wallace Burke, 169 Pa.Super. 633, (1951); Squires, 248 S.C. 239, 601 (1966). Starks, Ill. 567, (1947); McDowell 225 Ind. 495, 249 King, 180 Neb. 631, 438 (1966); Morgan Cox, N.M. 406 347 Ivey Meadows, Tenn. 678, 744 Swaim 165 553, 448, 823, President commanding officer court-martial Reid Covert, 37—38, 68, 1222, 1241, 1148 Black, rely gives 'continuing jurisdiction' supplement cut-off Consider antisocial acts committed indirectly criminally responsible pressed dropped, three. Pearce's stated: outright carry consequence relieving 713-714 1. basis, interference processes. entered releasing at, before, Peyton Rowe, 391 54, 1549, 426 prohibition tend manner encourage frivolous appeals. appeals, insofar discourages would-be appellant's quandary seen Cf., afforded subsequently vacated Neither Benz prohibiting depends prisoner's application, sua sponte court. (It appears, Lange's behest.) (1900), moves occupies posture sued sentenced, mere delay assert punished.' 161—162, 641. Thus, augmented, entitled proves much, opinion. survives Green. pitched non-capital cases,' does—without imposed—preclude 'a case.' Brief Plaintiff Error O.T.1919, p. 32. Stroud's grounds. seq. lead difficulty reconciling Clause's vacates Street 572 (1969); Sibron Ginsberg 629, 1274, 195 himself caused vacated, majority's 'nullification' him—so 'increased' court's 'credit' completed. misdeeds misconduct discovered, outcome violations, them. something less, uncertainty kinds noncriminal analytically, thwart distinguishes 747. introducing harmful chances

Category: 0