Court Opinion

ID: 9431698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:33:00.354754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:29.846205
License: Public Domain

Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
After successfully challenging the validity of his plea bargain on the ground that the trial judge had misinformed him about the penalties he could face, respondent Smith went to trial. He was convicted and resentenced to a drastically longer sentence than the one he had initially received as a result of his plea bargain. The majority today finds no infirmity in this result. I, however, continue to believe that, “if for any reason a new trial is granted and there is a conviction a second time, the second penalty imposed cannot exceed the first penalty, if respect is had for the guarantee against *804double jeopardy.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 726-727 (1969) (Douglas, J., concurring, joined by Marshall, J.) (emphasis added). I therefore dissent.