Document: 488 U.S. 33 109 S.Ct. 285 102 L.Ed.2d 265 A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Petitionerv.Johnny Lee NELSON. No. 87-1277. Argued Oct. 3, 1988. Decided Nov. 14, Syllabus Arkansas' habitual criminal statute provides that a defendant who is convicted class B felony may be sentenced to an enhanced term imprisonment if the State proves beyond reasonable doubt, at separate sentencing hearing, he has least four prior convictions. At respondent's hearing following his guilty plea felony, introduced certified copies convictions, one which, unbeknownst prosecutor, had been pardoned by Governor. The case was submitted jury, which found met its burden proving convictions and imposed sentence. Several years later, respondent sought writ habeas corpus in United States District Court, contending sentence invalid because used support it pardoned. Court determined conviction question fact set aside then held, reliance on Burks v. States, 437 1, 98 2141, 57 1 (1978), Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited from attempting resentence as offender basis another not offered or admitted initial hearing. Appeals affirmed, reasoning inadmissible under state law, forbade retrial remaining evidence adduced trial legally insufficient sustain jury's verdict enhancement. Held: When reviewing court determines defendant's must certain erroneously against him, further finds once discounted, there conviction, does forbid so long sum court—whether not—would have sufficient verdict. general rule preclude succeeds getting for such "trial errors" incorrect receipt rejection evidence. exception based view reversal evidentiary insufficiency functional equivalent court's granting judgment acquittal close all Because passing motion considers admitted, this same quantum considered deciding whether permissible Clause. Permitting instance sort oppression aimed, but simply affords opportunity obtain fair adjudication guilt free error. Pp. 38-42. 828 F.2d 446 (CA8 1987), reversed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 38—42. J. Steven Clark, Little Rock, Ark., petitioner. John Wesley Hall, Jr., respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. In held retry him conviction. Nothing record suggests any misconduct prosecutor's submission We conclude cases this, where verdict, retrial. 2 Respondent Johnny Nelson pleaded burglary, misdemeanor theft. He State's statute, "who previously . [or] [4] more felonies," between 20 40 years. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1001(2)(b) (1977) (current version Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-501 (1987)). To prove requisite number 41-1005 5-4-502 (1987)); 41-1003 5-4-504 Section sets out means prosecution providing "[a] previous finding proved satisfies trier doubt guilty," three types documents, including "a duly copy record," are "sufficient guilt." (1987)).1 entitled challenge rebut with own. 41-1005(2) 5-4-502(2) 3 introduced, without objection defense, Unbeknownst those Governor several after entry. Defense counsel made no admission too unaware Governor's action. On cross-examination, indicated belief prosecutor suggested confusing pardon commutation time served. Under questioning court, agreed commuted rather than pardoned, matter pursued further.2 jury,3 courts upheld both direct collateral review, despite protestations relied upon pardoned.4 4 again investigation undertaken Court's request revealed declared invalid. announced intention offender, using interposed claim double jeopardy. After arguments counsel, decided prevented burglary charge. 641 F.Supp. 174 (ED Ark.1986).5 Eighth Circuit affirmed. (1987). reasoned admissible "[w]ithout [it], failed provide evidence" Id., 449-450. granted certiorari review interpretation 485 904, 108 1073, 99 233 (1988).6 5 Fifth Amendment, applicable through Fourteenth see Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 707 (1969), person shall "be subject offense twice put jeopardy." It settled, however, Clause's prohibition successive prosecutions prevent government retrying first aside, appeal attack, some error proceedings leading Ball, 163 662, 16 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896) (retrial appeal); Tateo, 377 463, 84 1587, 12 448 (1964) when attack). This rule, "well-established part our constitutional jurisprudence," id., 465, S.Ct., 1588, necessary order ensure "sound administration justice": 6 "Corresponding right accused given societal interest punishing whose clear obtained trial. would high price indeed society pay were every immunity punishment defect constitute reversible conviction." 466, 1589. 7 also serves interests defendants, "it doubtful appellate zealous they now protecting effects improprieties pretrial stage knew irrevocably reach prosecution." Ibid. 8 we recognized bar succeeded below. reversed sole ground bars 18, 2150; Greene Massey, 19, 24, 2151, 2154, 15 (1978); Hudson Louisiana, 450 40, 42-43, 101 970, 971-972, 67 30 (1981). 9 effect determination government's lacking should entered acquittal, submitting jury. Burks, U.S., 16-17, 2149-2150. obtains level absolute offense, ought do acquittal. 10-11, 16, 2146-2147, 2149. entitlement not, thought, affect jeopardy consequences; hold otherwise "would create purely arbitrary distinction" defendants hierarchical made. 11, 2147. 10 presented case—whether allows concludes conviction—was expressly reserved supra, 26, n. 9, 2155, day Burks. think logic requires answered affirmative. 11 careful point solely fundamentally different implications, purposes, ordinary "incorrect evidence." 14-16, 2148-2150. While former "that case" defendant, latter "implies nothing respect innocence defendant," [he] judicial process defective fundamental respect." 15, 2149 (emphasis added). appears us dispute situation described error"—the erred admitting particular piece evidence, But clearly enough sentence: jury before them enhancement statute. See Ark.Code later vitiated legal effect, did deprive probative value statute.7 quite consider Clause—indeed, ratio decidendi 2149-2150—and overwhelming majority considering agreed.8 treated differently A make analogy complete court. 13 governmental aimed; rather, affording "obtai[n] readjudication error." 2149; Tibbs Florida, 457 31, 2211, 2217, 72 652 (1982); DiFrancesco, 449 117, 131, 426, 434, 66 328 (1980); Scott, 82, 91, 2187, 2193, 65 (1978). Had become nullity reason pardon, judge presumably allowed offer Our holding today thus merely recreates excluded showing pardon. Cf. discussion 6-7, 2144-2145. 14 accordingly Reversed. whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 17 felonies" ranging 5-4-501(b)(3) March 1982 burglary,1 indicating protested received gubernatorial disbelieved Nelson's claim, prison. Three half later—during Nelson, jail, persistently implored investigate claim—a Federal finally ordered check records. Lo behold, turned pardoned—and soon try again, offender.2 18 holds that, although attempted required status, violate attempt again. I believe, squarely foreclosed initially present guilt. rushes headlong past facets law reveal prosecution's failure case, answer open narrow certiorari. By virtue majority's haste, faces new trial, will able augment opted introduce place. result embodies classic evil "honing strategies perfecting attempts conviction," 41, (1982), dissent. 19 * "designed protect individual being subjected hazards possible alleged offense." Green 355 184, 187, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957). Reflecting principle, prevents insufficient. (1981); time-honored notion only "one whatever proof [can] assemble." Unlike error, traditionally barred retrial, (1964); (1896), "constitute[s] decision case." troubling respects, justice system seems taken seriously. bottom, controlled principle. For pardons, times valid errs treating mere reaching unsettled issue whether, improper evaluate sufficiency including, excluding, tainted (expressly reserving question). everything proof. 21 As noted ruling decisional proceedings. 174, 183 Ark.1986) (under law: "[A] renders nullity. [F]or purposes pardonned [sic] conviction"). cited 1973 Supreme Duncan State, 254 449, 494 S.W.2d 127 (1973), cannot counted toward 451, S.W.2d, 129, quoted approval Ex parte Garland, 71 (4 Wall.) 333, 380, 366 (1867), stated: "A reaches prescribed offender; full, releases blots existence guilt, eye innocent never committed Drawing state-court holding, concluded: "The truth could provided petitioner's contention exist." F.Supp., 184.3 22 That roused until transform proof—fatal into admissibility. noted, establishes carry significant ferreting information regarding validity whenever seeks enhancement." 184 (citing Roach 255 773, 503 467 (1973)). delay discovery change essential paper disputed devoid moment expunged "blots existence" happened. 129. If, seeking documented blank fourth, produced There constitutionally difference hypothetical case.4 sum, assemble" 2149, "failed reversing give second chance pays lipservice therefore prohibits subjecting can "supply fourth "which muster proceeding." II 24 Even regard join my colleagues majority. evaluating look just properly complex one. worthy thoughtful consideration typically attending decisions concerning 25 instead resolves already decided. Ante, 40-41. view: "It Clause." thing. retrial; did. presume decide completely distinct issue, raised what measure evaluates went ruled inadmissible. Indeed, settled even logically specifically reserve resolution very Burks.5 26 me analysis begin recognition apply, balancing two weighty interests: repose society's orderly justice. See, e.g., avoiding trials charge reflects idea 27 "should repeated convict thereby embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing anxiety insecurity, well enhancing possibility though guilty." 187-188, 223. 28 Society's corresponding sound "[i]t 29 intend settle best accommodates these competing portion blush, seem bit great situation. interest, appear turn variables. chief likelihood lead 1589 (noting "in clear"). appraising likelihood, might inquire prosecutors tend back guilt; scant permitting is, definition, insufficient.6 Alternatively, why deemed Where stricken reasons having unreliability, curious include calculus. Inadmissible hearsay example, nonprobative included. contrast, compliance rules grounded other public policies—the policy encouraging subsequent remedial measures embodied Rule Evidence 407, deterring unconstitutional searches seizures exclusionary rule—might justifiably included analysis.7 enunciated type, calibrated accommodate, possible, guilty. Regrettably, avoids subtlety terse opinion. Instead, opts declaration —although settling here. ipse dixit jurisprudence worst kind. follows: ". guilt: "(1) record; "(2) certificate warden officer penal institution jurisdiction, containing name fingerprints records office; "(3) custodian Justice, office." indication deceive occasion otherwise. Oregon Kennedy, 456 667, 2083, 416 (1982). Prior 1981, assigned responsibility determining (1977). General Assembly amended reassign 1981 Ark.Gen.Acts 252 (Feb. 27, 1981) (codified (Supp.1985) (1987))). Though took place amendments became effective, evidently amendments, permitted factual State. No either side, bearing us. challenged use enhance appeal. rejected contemporaneous CA CR 83-150 (May 2, 1984), App. [available WESTLAW, 1984 WL1818]. petitioned postconviction relief, denied "bare assertion" unsupported grant relief. 84-133 (Nov. WL 1649]. clear, resentencing itself, absence status. 186. attacked below single ground: proceeding question, ordinarily issues logical antecedents: (1) limits power capital proceedings, Bullington Missouri, 451 430, 1852, 68 270 (1981), carries over noncapital North Carolina Pearce, 711, 720, 2072, 2078, 656 (1969); (2) insufficiency, federal attack Justices Boston Municipal Lydon, 466 294, 104 1805, 80 311 (1984). questions affirmative, conceded briefs oral argument rulings. assume, deciding, barrier sure correct describe "inadmissible," statutory provision colloquy referred above. mistakenly thought concerned discovered pardoned; closest "newly decision, accept characterization Appeals. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 825 572, 588, (CA1 1987); Hodges, 770 1475, 1477-1478 (CA9 1985); Webster Duckworth, 767 1206, 1214-1216 (CA7 Marshall, 762 419, 423 (CA5 Bibbero, 749 581, 586, 1984); Key, 725 1123, 1127 Tranowski, 702 668, 671 1983), cert. denied, 468 1217, 3586, 82 884 (1984); Sarmiento-Perez, 667 1239 (CA5), 459 834, 103 77, 74 75 Harmon, 632 812 1980); Mandel, 591 1347, 1373-1374 (CA4), rev'd grounds, 602 653 (1979), 445 961, 100 1647, 64 236 Harris 284 247, 681 334 People Rios, Cal.App.3d 852, 870-871, 210 Cal.Rptr. 271, 283-284 (1985); Sisneros, 44 Colo.App. 65, 606 P.2d 1317 Gray, 200 Conn. 523, 536-540, 512 A.2d 217, 225-226 (1986); Hall 244 Ga. 86, 93-94, 259 S.E.2d 46-47 (1979); Taylor, 76 Ill.2d 289, 309, Ill.Dec. 103, 112, 391 N.E.2d 366, 375 Morton Md. 526, 397 1385 Commonwealth Mattingly, 722 288 (Ky.1986); 383 Mass. 272, 283-285, 418 1226, 1233-1234 Wood, 596 394 (Mo.), 876, Roeder 688 856, 859-860 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Lamorie, 610 342, 346-349 (Utah Van Isler, 168 W.Va. 185, 283 836 $45.00 vending machine 1979. 175 (E.D.Ark.1986). 1960 assault intent rape. 1964 Orval E. Faubus. (text pardon). shows unsuccessfully during alert authorities During stated serving "had investigated governor Faubus [sic ] gave sentence." (abridged transcript trial). added: "[A]t home documents ]." 9. about claim. moved strike testimony "confused meaning commutation." 11. "I ." 11-12. Ultimately, judge, own defense counsel—who like pardon—accepted account. 12. receiving sentence, actions investigated. Only come light—in August 1985. 1-4. disturb Rather, focused upon, rejected, attach trials. 446, 1987). aspect Appeals' ruling. ante, 36—37, 4. engage however measured. F.2d, 450. offers analogy: states, 6. overlooks critical distinction. emergence way strips old value; while cast persuasiveness render "insufficient." robs value. stripped weight, itself. called parties' attention fact. None numerous 7, interpreted disposing varying degrees analysis, evaluated ramifications excluding society—precisely analytic approach urge succeeding paragraphs. 1983) (concluding favor analysis), Bullard Estelle, 665 1358-1361 1982) (using similar involving concluding analysis). say lacked gather Such conduct precisely designed guard against. "clear ruling" test accommodating interests. test, affirmatively admissible, rely counting Brief Petitioner furthers note 1589, (1964): safeguarding defendants' rights. authorize case. Far refrained introducing additional done believe meritless. supra.

Category: 0