Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 772.0

524US2

Unit: $U98

[09-06-00 19:40:38] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 721 (1998)

727

Opinion of the Court

crime, as well as an overall assessment of the defendant’s
character.”

Id., at 839, 941 P. 2d, at 1130.

The concurring justice who provided the fourth vote to
reverse noted that retrial on a prior conviction allegation
would not require the factﬁnder to reevaluate the evidence
underlying the substantive offense. Accordingly, she con-
cluded that a second attempt at proving the allegation would
not unfairly subject a defendant to the risk of repeated
prosecution within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy
Clause.
Id., at 846–847, 941 P. 2d, at 1134–1135 (Brown,
J., concurring). Three justices dissented, asserting that
under Bullington’s rationale, the Double Jeopardy Clause
precludes successive efforts to prove prior conviction al-
legations.
Id., at 847, 941 P. 2d, at 1135 (opinion of Wer-
degar, J.).

The California Supreme Court’s decision deepened a con-
ﬂict among the state courts as to Bullington’s application to
noncapital sentencing. Compare, e. g., State v. Hennings,
100 Wash. 2d 379, 670 P. 2d 256 (1983), with People v. Levin,
157 Ill. 2d 138, 623 N. E. 2d 317 (1993). Prior to this Court’s
determination that the nonretroactivity rule of Teague v.
Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), would bar the extension of Bull-
ington to noncapital sentencing proceedings on federal ha-
beas review, see Caspari, supra, the Federal Courts of Ap-
peals had reached disparate conclusions as well. Compare,
e. g., Briggs v. Procunier, 764 F. 2d 368, 371 (CA5 1985), with
Denton v. Duckworth, 873 F. 2d 144 (CA7), cert. denied, 493
U. S. 941 (1989).
In view of the conﬂicting authority on the
issue, we granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 1072 (1998).

II

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, ap-
plicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment,
provides: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” We have
previously held that it protects against successive prosecu-