Document: 468 U.S. 27 104 S.Ct. 2916 82 L.Ed.2d 23 Morris THIGPEN, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al., Petitionerv.Barry Joe ROBERTS. No. 82-1330. Supreme Court the United States Argued April 23, 1984. Decided June 27, Syllabus Following an accident in which he lost control his car and collided with a pickup truck, killing passenger respondent was charged four misdemeanors—reckless driving, driving while license revoked, on wrong side road, intoxicated. Upon being convicted these charges Justice Peace Court, appealed, case transferred to Circuit for trial de novo. While appeal pending, indicted manslaughter based same accident, convicted. The affirmed, refusing leave pursue state postconviction remedies. Respondent then brought habeas corpus action Federal District adopted Magistrate's report holding that prosecution violated Double Jeopardy Clause substitution felony charge covering conduct had been misdemeanors Due Process Clause. Appeals relying solely double jeopardy ground. Held: 1. manslaughter, following invocation statutory right misdemeanor convictions, unconstitutional as violation due process. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 21, 94 2098, 40 628. fact proceedings before were county prosecutor's responsibility, whereas indictment obtained by Attorney, who involved trial, may not make inappropriate presumption vindictiveness arising from obtaining indictment. That does hinge continued involvement particular individual. In any event, here prosecutor State's sole representative at arraignment and, required statute, assisted trial. Pp. 30-32. 2. Although petition certiorari addressed only issue, this without deciding will decide process issue remand it Appeals, where argued both courts below, opposition its brief are factual record is adequate. 32-33. 693 F.2d 132 (5th Cir.1982), affirmed. William S. Boyd, III, Brandon, Miss., petitioners. Rhesa H. Barksdale, Jackson, amicus curiae support judgment below special order Court. WHITE delivered opinion 1 On August 6, 1977, Barry Roberts truck. Shortly after received citations reckless He Tallahatchie County, Miss.1 gave notice novo.2 2 December grand jury 6 accident. App. 90-91. arraigned simultaneously, five set together. Id., 92-93. During State elected press remanded them file.3 judge sentenced him 20 years prison. State, 379 So.2d 514 (1979). It also refused post-conviction 3 present Northern Mississippi. referred Magistrate, recommended writ two reasons. First, because proof all elements already See Illinois Vitale, 447 410, 100 2260, 65 228 (1980). Second, 628 (1974). report. Fifth argument, reported (1982). 4 We granted certiorari, 461 956, 103 2427, 77 1315 (1983), we now affirm. court affirm ground law permit expand relief below. New York Telephone Co., 434 159, 166, n. 8, 98 364, 369 54 376 (1977). Because plainly controlled supra, basis decision reaching issue. 5 Perry assault limited jurisdiction under scheme essentially identical Mississippi's. exercised novo, charging deadly weapon. concluded sequence events suggested "a realistic likelihood 'vindictiveness.' " U.S., S.Ct., 2102. Fearing prosecutor, "has considerable stake discouraging misdemeanants appealing thus novo," would retaliatory use power "up ante," considered situation analogous imposition stiffer sentence reversal reconviction. North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 656 (1969). therefore established circumstances. Blackledge, 27-28, 2102-2103. clearly controls case.4 relevant facts identical. Like or be confronted charge. covered sought appeal. As Magistrate concluded, "[t]he fall squarely within Blackledge." Pet. Cert. A4. 7 possible distinction between cases attorney apparently responsible entire prosecution. Here responsibility might if different prosecutors involved, vindictiveness, arises part assumptions about individual's personal proceedings, inappropriate. Cf. Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 92 1953, 32 584 (1972) (refusing apply prophylactic rule Pearce enhanced imposed novo). other hand, extent reflects "institutional pressure . subconsciously motivate vindictive prosecutorial response defendant's exercise obtain retrial decided question," Goodwin, 457 368, 377, 102 2485, 2491, 73 74 (1982), A district burdened already-convicted defendant no less did bring initial Indeed, frequently actions "the State," rather than prosecutor." E.g., 28-29, 8 need determine correct when independent however. participated fully conclusion 92, id., 94; Tr. Oral Arg. 9, presented closing argument jury, 96. fact, such participation duty. Under effect, "assist criminal circuit court" interest "to represent matters coming county." Miss.Code Ann. § 19-23-11 (1972). circumstances, addition Attorney team changes little.5 9 Petitioners suggest should reach ourselves. 24. true "[w]hen attention has focused issues, comes expressed views controlling question, appropriate deal merits question Court." Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 476, 90 1153, 1157, 25 491 (1970). Nonetheless, have little hesitation current posture. Appeals. us. adequate, improved Appeals.6 And straightforward application precedent. 10 unconstitutional. resulting conviction cannot stand. 11 Affirmed. 12 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 13 review single certiorari: whether properly applied our (1980), sustaining respondent's claim Fourteenth Amendments Constitution. held bar further stemming death 10-year-old child truck collision car. This however, unexampled bit procedural footwork surely adverse implications "rule four" principle governing grants simply refuses even consider raised certiorari. Without explanation whatever, affirms alternative 14 precedent cited unexplained—and I dare say unexplainable—decision But stands unexceptionable proposition argue supported affirming lower court, though cross-petition Nevertheless, Co. ruling affirmance urged respondent. 174-178, 373-375. (1970).1 believe obligated confront contention misapplied Amendment case. unwilling undertake obligation, turn dissent. 15 tried offense northwestern population approximately 17,000 people. pay fine $100 offense. permitted "two-tier" system, appealed entitled retried causing riding struck "nolle prossed" but custody Corrections. 16 Respondent's affirmed After exhausting remedies, filed federal relief. determination. "because substantial Court's court's granting must affirmed." A13. 17 conclusion, mistakenly relied upon mere form expression Vitale depart previous holdings area. felt changed establish substantial, dispositive, merely showing actually evidence prove crimes. there one supports construction, do construction consistent whole. Until case, answered crime same, used same. 18 barred previously pleaded guilty failing reduce speed out incident. vacated Illinois, saying: 19 "The point automobile always entail failure slow, offenses 'same' Blockburger test. possibility seek rely ingredients necessarily included traffic element sufficient latter prosecution." 419, 2266-2267. seems me clear statement can inquiry turns actual convict went distinguish Harris Oklahoma, 433 682, 97 2912, 53 1054 (1977), so doing stated: 21 "By analogy, pending relies proves slow avoid act necessary Constitution." 421, 2267. 22 last afford some expressed, nor think entirely first quotation opinion. am reasonably sure intend transmute traditional analysis either down" into "substantial claim" introduced ambiguities urgently resolution affords ample opportunity this, abdication responsibility. unambiguously reaffirm Brown Ohio, 432 161, 2221, 187 '[t]he applicable transaction constitutes distinct provisions, test one, each provision requires not.' 2225, quoting States, 284 299, 304, 52 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). 24 Applying demonstrably treatment Comparing statute said: "A narrow focus statutes provides answer. Proof could proved completely foreign vehicular collision." A10-A11 26 taking account "judicial veneer" placed Mississippi, "it apparent proven time proving driving. specific offense, automobile, statutorily defined, novel situation. Depending alone veneer well, prong gives results." A11. declined resolve statutes, mandated Brown, "second prong" led said jeopardy, whatever phrase mean. claim," aside state-court conviction. 28 Ohio respect manner operation motor vehicle public roads, wise result injury persons property. culpable negligence mind, way involve automobile.2 29 "same evidence" "reckless" automotive "culpable negligence" dispositive. For driven found manslaughter; caused death, "Blockburger" Iannelli 420 770, 785, 17, 95 1284, 1294, 43 616 (1975), 30 "[T]he focuses If not, satisfied, notwithstanding overlap offered crimes." 31 Since reaffirmed determines crimes purposes. Missouri Hunter, 459 359, 367-368, 673, 678-679, 535 (1983). inferred never second grounds jeopardy. reverse insofar upheld claim. pass (1974), instance. 33 O'CONNOR, whom POWELL joins, 34 reasons stated REHNQUIST's dissent, address agree REHNQUIST Appeals' consideration light my view, attach tier 35 Two-tier systems adjudicating serious extremely common. 112, 4, 1958, occasion Term problems two-tier Justices Boston Municipal Lydon, 466 294, 1805, 80 311 (1984). Mississippi's system fairly typical. justice peace absolute novo chooses Calhoun City Meridian, 355 209, 211 (CA5 1966); 99-35-1 seq. bypass inferior pleading erasing immediately thereafter consequence otherwise follow tendering plea." 119-120, 1962. 36 circumstances "jeopardy" anything undergoes first-tier 37 "offer learn prosecution's chooses, reveal own. reality choices accept reject what effect more offer settlement [second-tier trial,] determined full made court." 118-119, 1961. 38 chose settlement" 13, perfected day. eventually consolidated prosecuted further. There indication ever paid fine. At oral counsel conceded probably not. 39 dispositive Though tried, convicted, effortlessly erased suffered punishment whatsoever circumstance violate Roberts' constitutional twice Accordingly, vacate supra. fined months jail days $1,000 influence. Courts concurrent County over misdemeanors. §§ 9-9-21, 99-33-1 practice, prosecutors. Brief 5, 1; 7-10. Such initiated affidavit, serving function 99-35-1. file "is functional equivalent nolle pros." 15. overruled, least modified, Goodwin pretrial demand distinguished critical differences timing heightened amount extra effort put State. hint force repeated here. attempted shared violations closely resembled their focusing Even common those here, parsing misses point. engaged analysis. noted "indictment convicted." 2100. equally Whatever congruence, lack thereof, charged, postappeal poses danger retaliating against accused lawfully attacking conviction." Bordenkircher Hayes, 357, 363, 663, 668, 604 (1978). regard, note rebuttable. 376, 2490, 8; 29, 7, 2103. attempt rebut so. Its apply. Our Langnes Green, 282 531, 51 243, 75 520 (1931), contrary. errors specified petitioner petitioner's claims 540-542, 246-247; cf. Schlesinger Councilman, 738, 743-744, 1300, 1305-1306, 591 (1975). When instance, wholly similar abstain petitioner. created separate, nonstatutory Smith 197 Miss. 802, 701 (1945), 2232 (1942), read: "Every human being, act, procurement, another, authority law, provided chapter, shall manslaughter." remained unchanged since decision. 97-3-47 new Dickerson 441 536 (Miss.1983): "This [§ 97-3-47] authoritatively construed involving alleged require that, 'was gross complained evince [sic] wanton disregard safety life, indifference consequences surrounding render tantamount willfulness.' 538 (citing 812, So.2d, 703). 97-3-47. instances prosecutions employed language, indicating juxtaposition words "manslaughter" "motor vehicle" nothing illuminate meant Latiker 278 398, 399 (1973); Gregory 152 133, 141-142, 118 So. 906, 909 (1928).

Category: 0