Legal Document

468 U.S. 559 104 S.Ct. 3217 82 L.Ed.2d 424 Milton R. WASMAN, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 83-173. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 20, 1984. Decided July 3, Syllabus Prior to trial on a federal indictment charging petitioner with mail fraud, he was indicted, tried, and convicted unrelated offense knowingly willfully making false statements in passport application. At sentencing hearing, judge stated that, pursuant his usual practice, would not consider pending fraud charge passing sentence but only prior convictions. Petitioner then sentenced two years' imprisonment, all six months which suspended favor three years probation. Thereafter, dismissed, an information possession counterfeit certificates deposit substituted. pleaded nolo contendere that before different District Judge Subsequently, Appeals reversed petitioner's conviction for offense, retried same again convicted. In imposing none suspended, explained imposed greater because intervening deposit. The rejected argument conduct underlying occurred original conviction, could not, under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 23 656, receive than received conviction. affirmed. Held: After retrial following defendant's successful appeal, authority may justify increased by affirmatively identifying relevant or events subsequent proceedings. Pp. 563-565, 569-571, 571-572. (a) supra, held Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment prevented sentences motivated vindictive retaliation after reconviction whenever imposes more severe upon defendant new trial, reasons doing so must appear. Thus, Pearce establishes rebuttable presumption vindictiveness, absolute prohibition against enhancement sentence. 563-565. (b) Here, fact effect confinement had originally sufficient engage Pearce. However, carefully sentence, consideration manifestly legitimate, amply rebutting any presumtion vindictiveness. 569-571. 700 F.2d 663 (CA 11 1983), Jay Moskowitz, Miami, Fla., petitioner. Alan I. Horowitz, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER announced judgment delivered opinion respect Parts I, II-A, III-A, III-C, IV, II-B III-B, WHITE, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR joined. 1 We granted certiorari decide whether Fifth violated when given appeal been court considered criminal acts committed sentencing. 2 * Petitioner, attorney, indicted four counts violation 18 U.S.C. § 1341. these charges, application, 1542. hearing first Government advised charges were previously failure file tax return. Petitioner's counsel replied it be inappropriate its yet respond charges. 3 informed parties always convictions did charges: "[I]f judges at time considering also cases . if case resulted one inevitably have pyramided sentence." App. 26. Following this colloquy, 4 negotiations between Government, dismissed substituted one-count deposit, 480. another Federal Southern Florida Brief 3-15. 5 what Circuit subsequently grounds material here remanded trial. 641 326 (1981). presiding second who presided 2-year partially This time, suspended. deposit: 6 "[W]hen I [petitioner's] record Court's eyes, consideration, income returns, nothing else. don't other either, matters result pyramiding sentences. comes me Last came conviction." Pet. Cert. A-42. 7 656 (1969), 8 Eleventh affirmed, holding "was based objective, factual evidence considered, neither judicial vindictiveness nor reasonably perceivable as having motivated. ." 663, 670 (1983). It "followed precisely procedural steps [North v.] stating reason enhancing basing objective concerning identifiable defendant, data action part constitutional legitimacy [could] fully reviewed appeal." Id., 667. 9 counterfeiting itself "conduct occurring sentencing," see 726, S.Ct., 2081. read concerned "vindictive sentencing, misbehavior trials." noted there "no whatsoever" out expressly declined follow contrary holdings Courts Second Ninth Circuits enhanced See Markus, 603 409 (CA2 1979); Williams, 651 644 (CA9 1981). 10 certiorari, 464 932, 334, 78 304 (1983), resolve conflict among meaning II A. is now well established accorded very wide discretion determining appropriate jury permitted might bear proper particular crime committed. Black made point when, writing Williams New York, 337 241, 247, 69 1079, 1083, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), observed 12 "[h]ighly relevant—if essential—to [the] selection fullest possible life characteristics." 13 Allowing such breadth ensures punishment will suit merely individual defendant. Ibid. 14 however, recognized least limitation where appeal. Two separate both cases, defendants successfully appealed their they originally. Double Jeopardy Equal Protection barred imposition reconvictions defendants. actually judge: "Due process law, then, requires attacked play no receives trial." U.S., 725, 2080. Because fear chill decision attack collaterally, went say "due freed apprehension retaliatory motivation judge." (footnote omitted). 15 To prevent actual from entering into allay product fashioned essence "prophylactic rule," Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 116, 92 1953, 1960, 32 584 (1972), "whenever appear." rule has "[apply] overcome justifying Goodwin, 457 368, 374, 102 2485, 2489, 73 74 (1982). rationale requiring "the based" record, course, "constitutional legitimacy," thereby readily assessed 16 State offered evidence" whatever respondent Rice's sentence; even "attempted explain justify" penalty. Similarly, advanced Pearce's "beyond naked power impose it," ibid. Finding barren rebut support either affirmed judgments granting relief. B 17 circumstance identified need indulge kind Blackledge Perry, 417 21, 94 2098, 40 628 (1974), while state prison, involved fight fellow inmate, charged misdemeanor assault deadly weapon. He State's Division 6-month prison term run consecutively serving. County Superior Court, where, applicable right de novo. Perry filed notice prosecutor obtained felony weapon intent kill inflict serious bodily injury. guilty five seven imprisonment increase Perry's already served Division. 19 impermissible Amendment, opportunities situation are impel conclusion due law analogous case." 27, 2102. prosecutor, we noted, "clearly considerable stake discouraging misdemeanants appealing obtaining 20 Although affirmative tendered brought bad faith, agreed devoid explanation indictment, relief should granted. Consistent explicitly disposition called legitimate nonvindictive justification charge. 29, n. 7, 2103, 7. acknowledgment, reaffirmation 21 "severity," 373, chary about extending likelihood pronounced Blackledge. reluctance understandable for, operation often "block[s] response conduct." 2489. invitations extend presumption. 22 saw application context Kentucky's two-tier system. supra. Under Kentucky inferior novo general jurisdiction. contention tribunal constitutionally prohibited "[t]he possibility found exist [was] inherent system." 1960. While believed prophylactic unnecessary, left open prove establish violation; system "as such" unconstitutional. 119, 1961. Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 17, 1977, 36 714 (1973), perceived "de minimis" Not unaware contrast Blackledge, thought unlikely "personal stake" "motivation self-vindication." 1983. emphasized 24 "Pearce written view protecting mere once slate wiped clean prosecution begins anew, fresh higher some valid associated flexibility process." 25, 1982. 25 explained, "premised apparent guard resentencing 1982 (emphasis original). Consequently, Colten, used means "punishing penalizing assertion protected rights" violate process. 32, 1986, 20. 26 Bordenkircher Hayes, 434 357, 98 54 604 (1978), implicated threatens seek does plead proceeds characterize "punishment retaliation" offensive process, id., 363, 668, instead noting by-product " 'give-and-take negotiation common plea bargaining.' 362, 667 (quoting Parker Carolina, 397 790, 809, 90 1458, 1479, 785 (1970) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). As Chaffin, out, proof 380, 12, 2492, 12. 27 Most recently, unwarranted adds demands highly "that pretrial demand bringing public interest." 384, 2494. our earlier objectively prosecutor's desire punish him something plainly allowed do." 28 If clear applying sense forbid toward exercised guaranteed rights. "presumed" products aroused defendants' appeals. enhanced, introduced behind increases; words, increases deemed Bordenkircher, hand—where apply—we 29 sum, applies, vindictiveness; apply, III 30 received. sharp care approached bears repeating: 31 Consideration interim legitimate. rebuts judge's plain proceeding; although took account This, proper; indeed, do inappropriate. 33 vindictive. Rather, argues foreclosed language points passage posited increasing "must proceeding." 2081 added). His "conduct" convicted, i.e., proceeding thus judge. 34 without ambiguities; recited petitioner, example, said section opinion: 35 "A man set aside acquitted. shorter longer imposed. ". A precluded, less light thrown 'life, health, habits, conduct, mental moral propensities.' 245 [69 1082, (1949) ]. Such come attention adduced itself, presentence investigation, possibly sources." 722-723, 2079-2080 37 addition, opinions suggest intend confine authority's proceeding. Douglas characterized allowing justified "events trial," "information developed initial 736, 6, 2094, (concurring opinion). refer temporal considered. appeared believe sole requirement majority "state courts articulate sentences." 741, 2083 (opinion concurring dissenting part). C 38 find reconcile ambiguities. asserted heightened case, hand, squarely presents question scope relied retrial. 39 conclude suggesting retrial, inconsistent whole. There logical distinction "events" insofar show motive concerned. provides philosophy modern take person every aspect life." 250, 1084. Even type detail enables appellate ensure supports increase. needless exclusion whom vested. entirely correct: "No exists phrase guidelines circumstances bearing relation purpose those guidelines." F.2d, 668. IV 41 hold 2081.a1 42 Affirmed. 43 POWELL, BLACKMUN joins, judgment. 44 join III-B opinion. write emphasize my involves straightforward (1969). applied commendable care, drawing stage undecided "[a]t [petitioner] 45 insists insufficient words "concer[n] crime; 46 "a [may imposed] 723, 2079. difference matter semantics—not substance. stated, "exal[t] above substance," When properly, simply language.a2 47 intended protect reasonable deter Both concerns met case. difficult think event occurrence determination 48 portions joined being consistent foregoing views. 49 BRENNAN, MARSHALL 50 Substantially expressed POWELL opinion, concur 51 STEVENS, 52 am unable THE CHIEF JUSTICE authored interprets resting concern identify interest prosecuting meritorious 724-725, 2080-2081. "The grounded proposition exist. 'since unconstitutionally exercise collaterally judge.' 28, 2102, (1974) 2080). What correct reading forth Markey's able Appeals. (CA11 1983). 53 flaw JUSTICE's infects II-A III-C cannot POWELL's though like MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, ground affirmance constitutes a1 "temporal limitation" unnecessary advance policies decision. can reference presented a2 Indeed most situations—such here—relevant subsumed "events." Of events—as conduct—that irrelevant enhancement. Clearly

Classification Label: 3