Document: 412 U.S. 47 93 S.Ct. 1966 36 L.Ed.2d 736 State of MICHIGAN, Petitioner,v.Leroy PAYNE. No. 71—1005. Argued Feb. 22, 1973. Decided May 21, Syllabus The 'prophylactic' due process limitations established by North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 711, 723—726, 89 2072, 2079—2081, 23 656, to guard against the possibility vindictiveness in cases where a judge imposes more severe sentence upon defendant after new trial, are not retroactively applicable resentencing proceedings that, like one involved this case, occurred prior date Pearce decision. Pp. 50—57. 386 Mich. 84, 191 N.W.2d 375, reversed and remanded. John A. Smietanka, St. Joseph, Mich., for petitioner. James R. Neuhard, Detroit, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 A writ certiorari was granted 409 911, 214, 34 172 (1972), decide whether holding 723 726, 656 (1969), is be given retroactive effect. For reasons that follow we hold today decision nonretroactive. 2 * Respondent, Leroy Payne, pleaded guilty county circuit court Michigan charge assault with intent commit murder connection an armed attack two sheriff's deputies. In March 1963 he sentenced prison term from 19 40 years. Several years later, respondent's conviction were set aside when hearing, ordered Court Appeals, disclosed his confession subsequent plea involuntary. Following retrial, at which exercised rights trial jury plead innocent, respondent again found on same charge. On August 30, 1967, resentenced 25 50 full credit all time served under sentence. During explained higher 'based nature crime impressions I formed (respondent) crime.' 3 Respondent appealed affirmed approved 18 Mich.App. 42, 170 523 (1969). While case pending before Supreme Court, who had presided over second requested submit affidavit detailing imposing judge's stated sentencing determination based primarily (i) has personal belief attitude since first proceeding changed regret remorselessness, (ii) view alibi defense, oath, 'tissue lies,' (iii) heightened opportunity learn details during three-day trial.1 4 4-to-3 decision, upheld but rejected as violative restrictions supra. 375 (1971). recognized yet decided applied which, Pearce's decision.2 declining predict how retroactivity question would ultimately resolved, apply then it 'pending clarification' Id., 90 n. 3, N.W.2d, 378 2. Before contends should retrospectively, even if applicable, state supreme erred invalid test. Because does retroactively, do reach State's contention.3 II 5 emphasized '(i)t can hardly doubted' while 'there exists no absolute constitutional bar imposition retrial,' entirely impermissible judges render harsher penalties punishment those defendants have succeeded getting their convictions reversed. U.S., 723, S.Ct., 2079. '(V) indictiveness' having appeal or collaterally, held, 'must play part (a defendant) receives trial.' 725, 2080. so holding, 'fundamental notions fairness embodied within concept process' absolutely preclude sentences such "retaliatory motivation." Chaffin Stynchcombe, 17, 25, 1977, 1982, 714. No 'new' rule thereby cannot questioned basic protection anticulated available equalty case. point parties disagree. 6 dispute centers, instead, around 'prophylactic'4 process. Those limitations, 'whenever trial,' 2081, require affirmatively appear,' objective information concerning identifiable conduct occurring original proceeding.' Ibid. here these govern predating Pearce. 7 contours inquiry been clearly delineated numerous decisions last decade. test utilized repeatedly ascertain protections area criminal procedure calls consideration three criteria: '(a) purpose standards, (b) extent reliance law enforcement authorities old (c) effect administration justice application standards.' Stovall Denno, 388 293, 297, 87 1970, 1199 (1967). See also Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 629, 636, 85 1731, 1737, 1741, 14 601 (1965); Tehan Shott, 382 406, 410—418, 86 459, 461—466, 15 453 (1966); Johnson New Jersey, 384 719, 726—727, 1772, 1777 1778, 16 882 (1966). 8 purposes imposed ensure 'that successfully attacked . (would) .' apprehension 'deter defendant's exercise right collaterally conviction. 2080; Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 116, 92 1953, 1960, 32 584 (1972). latter pertinent deterred exercising challenge But, any event, think clear function rules could only futuro: nothing suggests contemplated its might provide ground untimely reopening appeals Pearce.5 Copinger, 441 F.2d (CA4 1971). 9 first-articulated rules—to protect actual will infect proceeding—deserves closer scrutiny. Unlike underlying many heretofore accorded retrospective application,6 implicate "fair determination' guilt innocence.' Roberts Russell, 392 294, 88 1921, 1922, 20 1100 (1968) (emphasis supplied). It does, however, involve questions touching 'integrity' aspect judicial McConnell Rhay, 393 2, 32, 33, 21 (1968). serve improper considerations, unarticulated resentment appeal, subjective institutional interest discouraging meritless appeals. By eliminating factors occasion enhanced sentences, prophylactic assist guaranteeing propriety phase protective role, analogous Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694 (1966), police practices custodial interrogations order safeguard accused assure reliability statements made interrogations. Thus, similar each designed preserve integrity similarity, find held nonretroactive, provides considerable guidance here. Jenkins Delaware, 213, 1677, 253 10 inherent attribute rules, windfall benefits some suffered deprivation. Miranda's well-known warning requirements provided 'against unreliable every instance incustody interrogation,' covered 'situations danger (was) necessarily great subjected overt obvious coercion.' supra, 730, 1779 required reversal serious violation occurred. 731, 1779. Likewise, repudiation rendered circumstances there genuine played role. Judicial impropriety process, albeit intolerable wherever happens, surely common practice. Indeed, intimates regarded anything than infrequently appearing blemish process.7 Absent countervailing considerations rooted rule, factor—that broadly reversals instances prejudice suffered—points toward ruling prospectivity. 11 Nonretroactivity suggested similarity between created umbrella serving enhance guarantee, neither conferred existed decisions. use involuntary long preceded just free fundamentally unfair predated Supra, 50. foundational remain pre-Miranda pre-Pearce cases, nonretroactivity less likely result continued incarceration whose rest unconstitutional acts.8 640, 1743 (Black, J., dissenting). 12 Of course, impact particular inherently matter balancing 'probabilities.' 729, 1778; Adams Illinois, 405 278, 281, 916, 918, 31 202 Yet fact retroactive, innumerable hint appears, coupled claims may always evidence retaliatory motivation exists,9 little doubt 'probabilities' preponderate favor nonretroactivity.10 13 Although remaining factors—reliance burden justice—have controlling significance 'only did either prospectivity,' Desist United States, 394 244, 251, 1030, 1035, 22 248 support 'foreshadowed' Court.11 bound requirement they articulate generally enjoyed wide discretion terms legitimately consider. Williams York, 337 241, 69 1079, L.Ed. 1337 (1949). Nor said Court's forecast trend lower itself noted federal courts divided posed. 715 5, 2075. Under circumstances, certainly justifiable.12 reliance, fair assume few, any, complied recordation requirement, often considered variety relating fallen standard. We presented statistical indications persons received increased retrials.13 say, potential interference insubstantial retroactively. comply judge—assuming still bench otherwise available—would make factual meted out past. Compliance present difficulties, judges, witnesses trials, lack infallible memories perfect records motivations.14 637, 1742. shy burdens persuaded necessary effectuate need sum, three-part test, application.15 III Since hearing took place approximately decided, applying proscriptions Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded further inconsistent opinion. ordered. 17 Reversed DOUGLAS, dissenting. deal guarantee contained Fifth Amendment, States reason Fourteenth, Benton Maryland, 784, 2056, 707, person shall 'be subject offence twice put jeopardy life limb.' construction clause 656; Payne well benefit rule. My views odds witnessed dissent Black 1743, joined, my separate 255, 1037, 248. understand making prospectively. But bring myself others. If violated Federal Constitution convicting prisoner, see way denying him relief Double Jeopardy Clause discourage abusive Executive Branches awesome power government individual. attaches once starts. error had, Government impose added trial. That view, 726—737, 2081—2082. greater therefore affirm below. MARSHALL, holds placed resentencings believe obligation reviewing determine sentence, resulted authority's desire punish appealing conviction.1 respectfully dissent. This raises issue because almost unbelievable sluggishness appellate Michigan. Payne's nearly decided. However, Appeals until July 28, 1969, month years, finally deciding November 9, 1971. Had expeditious, used vehicle reconviction justified post-sentencing defendant, adopted difference Payne's, then, former moved up quickly latter. Different treatment our differ respect relevant different treatment.2 And speed system disposes related resentencing. lead me conclude pipeline announced must 24 curious another way. appears say failed 'a reasonably fear vindictiveness,' ante, 52 entitled review Cf. Fay Noia, 372 391, 396—397, 83 822, 825—826, 837 (1963).3 successful, occur rather strange someone adhered procedural vindicating error-free receive without limitation, adhere unless met. suppose anomalies occasionally inevitable, consider very carefully penalizing compliance rules. applies now-familiar three-pronged effect, reaches nonretroactivity.4 principled adjudication requires abandon charade retroactivity. Inspecting dealing retroactivity, appear fall into groups. lacked jurisdiction traditional sense. See, e.g., 707 (1969); Waller Florida, 397 387, 1184, 435 (1970). holdings fully retroactive. Ashe Swenson, 1189, 469 (1970); Robinson Neil, 505, 876, 35 29 (1973). Coin & Currency, 401 715, 91 1041, 28 434 other central determining innocence, led acquittal defendant. Gideon Wainwright, 335, 792, 799 (1963); re Winship, 358, 1068, 368 too Pickelsimer 84 80, 41 Ivan V. 203, 1951, 659 All prospective only.5 26 confess unable discover basis threefold classification, factor operating cases. forcing flounder substantial morass informing them invariably occurs results nonretroactivity. Furthermore, demeans pretend if, arrayed, predetermined. An open-minded examination compels conclusion divides several classes, determines result. Our better spent, think, attempting delineate classifications, derive principles, 'applying' thought begun task rationalizing apparently so. 27 simple one: Due Process adopt procedures minimize successful taken appeal. agrees 'this equally case.' Ante, 50, 51. what insure afforded question, involving relates behavior. One agree precise inappropriate largely procedurally ill-adapted problem, disagree convince Commonwealth Allen, 443 Pa. 96, 102, 277 A.2d 803 framed 'retroactivity' it, devise permit concluded enough judge, information, record, sentencing, permissible. Such although part,6 nonetheless substantially reduces will, significantly interfering lawful discretion. accomplish seeks reduced post-sentence conduct. absence evidence, reduced.7 'occasion deprivaton.' 53. assertion closely. 30 As notes, offen imposed. cites informal survey suggesting 12% reconvicted sentences. 56 13. Even estimate half large figure few With them, difficult produce supporting Moon 398 319, 1730, 262 (1970), Odom 400 23, 112, 122 indicate grounds faded, show presentence report recited justify fairly 'innumerable' defendants, 55; accrue convicted, appealed, reconvicted, receiver ago decision.8 'windfall benefits' impair incarcerating offenders. suppression probative severely limit ability secure undoubtedly committed offense, remedy simply reduction Rice, 404 247, 402, 404, 413 already appropriate satisfy various interests advanced incarceration.9 reasons, 33 STEWART joins Part affidavit, indicated hearings good become informed 'deliberate, cold-blooded attack.' amendatory filed corrected stating 'some limited hear testified witness prosecution accomplice' now preside codefendant testify continue, complete and, not, permissible manner dispose resolve controversy. infra. previously dismissed improvidently granted. (1970) (cert. granted, 975, 2135, 764 (1969)); 399 904, 2203, 559 (1970)). consistently declined unsettled regarding scope meaning establishing (1967) (holding Wade, 218, 1926, 1149 (1967), Gilbert California, 263, 1178 nonretroactive resolving preformal accusation confrontations, later Kirby 406 682, 1877, 411 (1972)); DeStefano Woods, 631, 2093, 1308 Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 1444, 491 (1968), Bloom 194, 1477, 522 summary contempt one-year 'serious' offense requiring jury, Baldwin 66, 1886, 437 (1970)); Carcerano Gladden companion DeStefano, unanimous verdict, Apodaca Oregon, 1628, 184 Elkanich 646, 1148, (1971), Chimel 752, 2034, 685 search compatible searches incident arrests). 1982; 118, 1961, suggest, specific convicted initial waiver caused judge. 725 20, (held (1972); Barber Page, 390 1318, 255 Berger 314, 540, 508 Bruton 123, 1620, 476 (1968)); (1963). most 'increased far rare,' 2080, role sufficient number 'warrant rule.' 1960. 299, 299 (in pre-Wade-Gilbert 'it remains open allege prove confrontation infringed law'); cf. Halliday 831, 833, 1498, 1499, true 'retaliatory motivation' 'difficult individual And, why Similar problems proof prompted themselves warrant application. reiterate cases: '(W)e disparage retroactively.' 728, (1965). Compare MARSHALL'S notation, post, 66 foreshadowed, i.e., retrial being questioned. focus here, measure achieve this, nor matters contrary unjustifiable. Note, Constitutional Law: Increased Sentence Denial Credit Retrial Sustained Traditional Waiver Theory, 1965 Duke L.J. 395, (informal showed six sentences). difficulties encountered recent resentencing: Furman Georgia, 408 238, 2726, 346 (1972) (the 'death penalty' case); (1973) retroactive). both '(t)hat constitutionally isolated excised begin entire factfinding anew.' 510, 879. relying ex rel. urges distinguish his, direct arising final. above-stated prospectively equal force June 300, 300; 252, 1035; 651—652, 1151—1152. 'objective 97, Petitioner erroneous. Petition Writ Certiorari 5—6. address contention, I. failure raise seeking persuade us merits, suffice Harlan, dissenting 475, 867, (1963), according precluded adequate denial habeas corpus. interpretation, anticipated rulings cursory nod (1968); Arsenault Massachusetts, 35, (1965), giving Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), anomaly unfamiliarity example, matter, shorter but, vindictiveness, reimpose outlined prevent this. continuing availability 'foundational' means offender shows shift State, access facts. courts, administering widely substantial. Stonom 235 So.2d 545 (Fla.App.1970); People Baze, 43 Ill.2d 298, N.E.2d Pilcher, 171 251 (Iowa 1969); Hord Commonwealth, 450 S.W.2d 530 (Ky.1970); Rentschler, 444 (Mo.1969); (1971); Denny Wis.2d 541, 178 38 foreshadowed somewhat misleading. Green 355 184, 78 221, 199 (1957), raised constitutionality Also, reading First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh Circuits re-conviction circumstances. Marano 374 583 (CA1 1967); Coke, 836 (CA2 1968) (en banc); Patton Carolina, 636 Simpson 396 499 (CA5 1968); White, 445 (CA7 1967). So California powerful Traynor. Henderson, 60 Cal.2d 482, Cal.Rptr. 77, P.2d 677 Finally, 'learned effective article,' Judge Friendly called arguing point, appeared 1965. Van Alstyne, Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties 'Successful' Criminal Appellant, 74 Yale 606 commentary prepared concedes, 12. unreasonable supplement insists treating argument.

Category: 0