Opinion ID: 747239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Double Jeopardy and Due Process

Text: 36 Finally, Barron contends that reinstatement of the original charges in his indictment would unconstitutionally subject him to double jeopardy and deny him due process of law. We disagree. 37 There is no double jeopardy bar to reprosecuting Barron on the section 924(c) count, because it was Barron who successfully challenged his section 924(c) conviction. 38 [T]he double jeopardy guarantee imposes no limitations whatever upon the power to retry a defendant who has succeeded in getting his first conviction set aside. It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction. To require a criminal defendant to stand trial again after he has successfully invoked a statutory right of appeal to upset his first conviction is not an act of governmental oppression of the sort against which the Double Jeopardy Clause was intended to protect. 39 United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 131, 101 S.Ct. 426, 434, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 40 As the district court pointed out, [once] it is determined that the plea agreement in this case, when accepted by the Court, resulted in a single composite sentence, any double jeopardy concerns disappear. Barron, 940 F.Supp. at 1496. A defendant has no legitimate expectation of finality in a sentence that he attacks so long as he has not completed serving the valid portion of that sentence. See United States v. Andersson, 813 F.2d 1450, 1461 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Jenkins, 884 F.2d 433, 441 n. 3 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 48 F.3d 1112, 1116-17 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1151, 115 S.Ct. 2598, 132 L.Ed.2d 844 (1995). Because Barron has not completed serving the valid portion of his sentence, he has placed his entire sentence package at issue in his section 2255 petition. See Gardiner v. United States, 114 F.3d at 734, 736 (8th Cir.1997). Rescission of Barron's plea agreement does not violate his due process rights.