Document: 475 U.S. 134 106 S.Ct. 976 89 L.Ed.2d 104 TEXAS, Petitionerv.Sanford James McCULLOUGH. No. 84-1198. Argued Dec. 10, 1985. Decided Feb. 26, 1986. Syllabus Respondent was tried before a jury in Texas District Court and convicted of murder. He elected to be sentenced by the jury, as his right under law, imposed 20-year sentence. The trial judge then granted respondent's motion for new on basis prosecutorial misconduct. retried with same presiding, again found guilty. This time he have fix sentence, she 50-year To justify longer entered following findings fact: testimony two state witnesses who had not testified at first added credibility State's key witness detracted from respondent defense witness; witnesses' directly implicated commission murder shed light upon life conduct; it learned retrial that been released prison only four months Appeals reversed 20 years' imprisonment, considering itself bound North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 711, 2072, 23 656, wherein held Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment prevented increased sentences when increase motivated sentencing judge's vindictiveness, show absence vindictiveness reasons imposing sentence must affirmatively appear. Criminal Appeals, while holding that, matter procedure, case should remanded resentencing, also Pearce presumed even though fixed punishment second trial. Held: violated imposition greater retrial. Pp. 137-144. (a) facts this provide no presumption vindictiveness. In contrast came about because herself concluded prosecutor's misconduct required it. Granting hardly suggests any part toward him. is inapplicable different sentencers assessed varying sentences, sentencer providing an on-the-record, logical, nonvindictive reason 141-144. (b) Even if were apply here, overcame presumption. Those clearly constituted "objective information justifying sentence," United States Goodwin, 457 368, 375, 102 2485, 2489, 73 74. 720 S.W.2d (Tex.Cr.App.1983), remanded. BURGER, C.J., delivered opinion Court, which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed concurring judgment, post, p. 144, MARSHALL, dissenting opinion, BLACKMUN STEVENS, joined, 145. Randall L. Sherrod, Canyon, Tex., petitioner. Jeff Blackburn, Amarillo, respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Chief Justice BURGER 1 We certiorari decide whether defendant court received where earlier defendant's trial, requested fact 2 * 1980, Sanford McCullough County, Texas, law. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 37.07 (Vernon 1981). Judge Naomi Harney, judge, McCullough's 3 Three later, Harney presiding. At State presented rather than accomplices slashed throat victim. guilty jury. time, judge. 50 years and, motion, made why She fixing relied evidence hence never known focused specifically witnesses, Carolyn Hollison Willie Lee Brown, "had direct effect strength both guilt phases trial." App. Pet. Cert. A-23. addition, explained later crime committed. Ibid. Finally, candidly stated would more years. Id., A-24.1 4 On appeal, resentenced imprisonment. 680 493 (1983). That considered Court's decision 656 (1969), could based conduct occurring after original trial.2 Petitioner sought review limited its authority limit resentencing. petitioner's rehearing, certiorari. 472 1007, 105 2699, 86 716 (1985). reverse. II 5 supra, placed limitation power reconviction It stated: 6 "Due process then, requires against having successfully attacked conviction play receives And since fear such may unconstitutionally deter exercise appeal or collaterally attack conviction, due freed apprehension retaliatory motivation 7 "In order assure motivation, we whenever imposes severe doing so appear." 725-726, S.Ct., 2080-2081 (emphasis added). 8 Beyond doubt, evil prevent simply enlarged requirements thus do every higher Like other "judicially created means effectuating rights secured [Constitution]," Stone Powell, 428 465, 482, 96 3037, 3046, 49 1067 (1976), restricted application areas "objectives are thought most efficaciously served," U.S., 487, 3049. Accordingly, each case, look need, circumstances, "guard resentencing process." Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 17, 25, 93 1977, 1982, 36 714 (1973) omitted). For example, Moon Maryland, 398 319, 90 1730, 26 262 (1970), did conceded clear played Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 92 1953, 32 584 (1972), saw need applying two-tier system Chaffin, applicable Where prophylactic rule does apply, still obtain relief can actual Wasman States, 468 559, 569, 3217, 3223, 82 424 (1984). 9 towards "[U]nlike has reversed," here "no engage self-vindication." 27, 1983. there justifiable concern "institutional interests might occasion desirous discouraging what regards meritless appeals." granting went record agreeing "claims" merit. Presuming alone tantamount presuming will vindictive merely seeks acquittal. Thus, support position, dissent conjures up visions judges view defendants temerarious filing motions trials, 151, "annoyed" being forced "to sit through . trial[s] whose result[s] [are] foregone conclusion[s]," 150. decline adopt judicial temperament our Nation's suddenly change successful post-trial motion. situations possibility speculative, particularly often "operate proof improper motive block legitimate response criminal conduct," 373, 2488, 74 (1982). Indeed, "apprehension judge," 725, 2080, present case. entitled law choose either Faced choice, chose Harney. There emphatic affirmation appraisal Harney's fairness choice. Because realistic sentencing, inappropriate. 10 received. "increase" cannot truly said taken place. bears recognized involved, 11 "[i]t [second sentencer] impose [first]. But follows penalty seeking [new] [first lenient penalty." 117, 1960. 12 Here, provides wholly read require accorded broad discretion see Wasman, 563-564, 3220-3221. 13 her belief initially unduly significant record, faulted. event, nothing Constitution prohibits permitting role sentencing.3 III 14 hold overcome Nothing precluding rebuttal intimations As explained, permits "a [to] identifying relevant events occurred subsequent proceedings." 572, 3225; id., 573, 3225 (POWELL, judgment). language, however, intended describe exhaustively all possible circumstances justified. Restricting justifications "events proceedings" some lead absurd results. Solicitor General hypothetical example: 15 "Suppose burglary, non-violent, apparently first, offense. short term perhaps probation. Following retrial, using alias long includes burglaries, several armed robbery convictions, committed course burglary. None underlying way justifies perverse result receive originally offender." Brief Amicus Curiae 26. 16 agree find bizarre conclusion.4 Perhaps reach best captured statement 374, 2489: 17 sum, [in ] applied objective sentence." 18 ignore refusing retroactively observed "the rules assist guaranteeing propriety phase Michigan Payne, 47, 52-53, 1966, 1969, 736 (1973). Realistically, anything focus forbid consideration bearing " '[h]ighly relevant—if essential—to [the] selection appropriate possession fullest concerning characteristics.' 564, 3220-3221 (quoting Williams New York, 337 241, 247, 69 1079, 1083, L.Ed. 1337 (1949)). 19 sure, reluctant risk new, probative supporting revealed "chilling effect" sufficient create constitutional prohibition assessing sentences. 29, 1984, intimated doubt validity despite whatever incidental deterrent they appeal." depart conclusion. careful explanation fits well within prior holdings. supported conclusion specific findings, noting "[t]he [of witnesses] Dennis [respondent] defense." these question showed committing offense." A-22. their "shed [McCullough's] life, conduct, mental moral propensities." These constitute confinement murder, ibid., another obviously state's interest "in dealing harsher manner those repeated acts shown incapable conforming norms society established law." Rummel Estelle, 445 263, 276, 100 1133, 1140, 63 382 (1980). A commits crimes release poses danger one less often. foreclose reliance kind pertinent developed incompatible modern standards. amply justified 21 setting aside bore legitimately impose, but concluded, reluctantly, precluded information. clarify scope thrust here. 22 further proceedings inconsistent opinion. Reversed 24 judgment. 25 After imprisonment Under I believe resulted sufficiently remote reverse judgment below. emphasize, able MARSHALL offered [were] far adequate rebut vindictiveness." Post, 152. dictum contrary, ante, 141-144, serves my distort Pearce. 27 whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 28 With little passing nod considerations prompted safeguard establishing presumptive majority refuses relevant, proceeds rob vitality cases applied. rationale presume respect permitted defeat presumption, dissent. 29 County Attorney treated much too leniently. local newspaper quoted prosecutor commenting: "A guy's ought worth that." Amarillo Globe-Times, Sept. 24, col. 1; Record, Defendant's Exhibit 5. Luckily Attorney, satisfied results either. requesting raising challenges trial: 30 "I. 31 "The Trial erred Motion Mistrial argument gave Defendant ten fifteen penitentiary, outside window end period wonder out Defendant. "II. 33 overruling cross-examination witness, DENNIS McCULLOUGH, purported 'confession' given Co-Defendant, KENNETH Such error Bruton [, 391 123, 88 1620, 476 (1968) ]." Trial, 17. 34 When entertained October 6, heard. Assistant noted full agreement Tr. 432-433 (Oct. 1980). next day's motives clear. 35 rare occurrence, Randy Sherrod yesterday joined calling McCullough, George Preston Small penitentiary. "Sherrod experience attorney 37 "He biggest factors influencing join [sic] getting Daily News, Oct. 7, C-1, 2. 38 See 21, cols. 1-6 ("DA Agrees Man Convicted Murder Case"); 1. 39 face publicity, moved venue, denied. 518 (Nov. Having failed attempt ensure knowledge postponed election until hear voir dire. 7-8 (Dec. 10-12, During dire least prospective jurors excused indicating trial's affect ability give fair 17-33. Immediately close dire, convicted. 122; 25-26. likely affected counsel's (1973), bar fears purge great decision. 40 heard sentencing. Defense counsel urged "there additional action conviction," 273-274 prosecution replied "from range jury." 277 which, inapplicable, heavier make remand unnecessary applicable. 33. Sue crime, certain witnesses. propensities," especially "propensity commit brutal persons future threat society." 34. "elected set twenty (20) year found: 41 "Upon involved numerous offenses served produced, attempted produce, style, habits, effort whatsoever rehabilitating himself. Again sign indication refraining future, nor posed violent continuing 35. A. 42 outset, reject majority's suggestion, 139, relevance us product message chance agency price pursue appeal. Rather, Clause, "vindictiveness 2080. assumed circumscribe again. 33, n. 1986, 21. 43 Had overturned nullified sense allow deprive him safeguards Whether proceeding, "personal stake conviction" "motivation self-vindication," wish "discourag[e] [s]he Moreover, waiver statutory elect sentencer, choice influenced desire avoid community exposed considerable publicity surrounding B 44 recognition personal animosity institutional prejudices infect led establish ordered. 45 "[i]n him." Ante, 138-139. observation betrays insensitivity underlie grant blindness peculiar 46 mere guarantee, indication, harbor resentment believes assignments valid, resent between publicly conceding errors waiting put test true alleged, however substantial cast guilt. come annoyed conclusion, quite ready vent annoyance giving stiffer otherwise confident error-free, doubts courts reviewing ruling agree. situation, feelings already alluded augmented judgments. 47 Turning general run solicitude merits claims. uncontested press coverage boon defendant. cynical suspicions shared Attorney's hope permit commensurate prosecution's heinousness brought bar. rate, imagine fell seek receiving comparatively counted 48 actually issue just point real, proving prejudice, difficult, Van Alstyne, Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties "Successful" Appellant, Yale L.J. 606, 612, (1965) (noting difficulties faced vindictiveness). holds "[e]ven presumption." 141. sufficient, effectively eviscerates "play trial," "defendant judge." rebuttable. decides 51 identifiable proceeding. factual data legitimacy fully reviewed 726, 2081. 52 formulation allowed rely event "conduct" open speculation, (1984), resolved "matter semantics," used place insistence restriction refusal WHITE subscribe wrote: 53 "I except Part II-C authorize objective, proceeding." 751, 2089 (concurring part). 54 rejection standard proposed "protect reasonable appealing conviction." 574, recently recognized, eliminate 3226 (BRENNAN, judgment); ibid. (STEVENS, Recognizing virtue passage relating become available decided allowing guarantee sound hollow deciding 55 By finding disregards announces regime "chill" plagued days once felt contest convictions. 56 assertions Brown strengthened corroborating produced adding few brush strokes portrayal proceeding character. However, natural normally expect Government prepare refine presentation." Tucker, 581 F.2d 602, (CA7 1978). inevitable. wishes punish asserted always around. noted: "If ground now participation offense, evaded almost case." W. LaFave & J. Israel, Procedure 176 easily avoided chance. leaves, "new" evince rehabilitate Surely something required. 57 neither dishonest sway American courtrooms, call integrity real enough. take small comfort benefit rebutting easy challenge prove unsuccessful. concerned, today's decision, references cumulative, charged satisfy § demand defendant," 2081, nullifies 58 Persuaded General's involving convictions apparent concludes "[r]estricting 'events proceedings' results." objection rejected there, amici curiae brief advised Court: 59 unlikely offense escaped notice accused moreover, government free bring separate habitual offender (recidivism) acts. extent states concerned generally tend instances without nature character accused, constitutionally ample provision staffing presentence reports guard feels appropriate. presumably done precise genuinely securing public safety." Civil Liberties Union et al. Amici O.T.1968, 413, pp. 9-10. IV 60 lot happened final day 1968 Term, handed down. casts today begins denying promise calls application. reaches render value defendants, plight explicit 1969. renege wrong. pretending shame. Later identical McCullough's. observed: "This demonstrates excessive detailed valid indicate during Although matters [under none S.W.2d, 496, presiding over conclude implication applies involved. See, e.g., Hawthorne, 532 318, 323 (CA3), cert. denied, 429 894, 97 254, 177 (1976). fact, drawn attention appear anywhere Clearly holding. Hardwick Doolittle, 558 292, 299 (CA5 1977), 434 1049, 98 897, 801 (1978). Subsequent opinions elucidated instance, derives 1983, odds reading answer two-sentencer issue. therefore governing 4, infra. contends "was there." 155. issue, like discussed, companion offer "any justification" argued assumption absolutely forbade briefs advanced intermediate position ultimately circumstances. Cf. O.T. 1968, 8-10 (quoted 155-156) (arguing "[t]o subject condition unconstitutional violates Clauses Fifth Amendments"). points out, formulating forth completely 'sharpen[ing of] presentation issues' provided adversary process, 'upon largely depends illumination difficult issues.' 22-23 Baker Carr, 369 186, 204, 691, 703, 663 (1962)). speak definitively tailor judicially implement guarantees, rule, 51, becomes apparent. Leon, 3405, 677

Category: 0