Second Sentencing for Same Crime OKd by High Court

The constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same crime does not protect convicted criminals from a second sentencing proceeding in non-capital punishment cases, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The 5-4 ruling in a case involving California’s “three strikes” law makes it easier for states to impose stiffer sentences on repeat criminals.

The justices said California prosecutors can try a second time to convince a court to impose an enhanced sentence on Angel Jaime Monge of Pomona, who was convicted of selling marijuana.

Monge argued that once an appeals court ruled his prior conviction for assault could not be used to enhance his sentence for the marijuana crime, prosecutors could not seek a retrial of that issue.

The Constitution’s 5th Amendment says people cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime.

“Many states have chosen to implement procedural safeguards to protect defendants who may face dramatic increases in their sentences” for being a repeat offender, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the court. “We do not believe that because the states have done so, we are compelled to extend the double jeopardy bar.”

Monge’s sentence for his 1995 conviction was doubled because his marijuana conviction was deemed a “second strike.” He had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in 1992.

California’s 1994 three strikes law calls for doubling the prison sentence for second convictions and results in sentences ranging from 25 years to life in prison for a third felony.

A state appeals court upheld Monge’s marijuana conviction but threw out his doubled sentence, saying there was insufficient proof that he used a dangerous or deadly weapon during his 1992 crime.

The appeals court also barred prosecutors’ attempt to retry that aspect of the previous case. To do so would violate the protection against double jeopardy, it said.

But the California Supreme Court cleared the way for such a retrial by ruling that the double-jeopardy protection does not apply in such circumstances. The nation’s highest court agreed.

The Supreme Court previously has ruled that double-jeopardy protection applies in death penalty cases. In 1981, the court said states cannot seek the death penalty in a second sentencing after a defendant’s first jury declined to impose a death sentence.

But O’Connor said death penalty cases have “unique circumstances” and noted the court generally has ruled that double-jeopardy protections do not apply to other sentencing proceedings.

Her opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Scalia wrote for himself, Souter and Ginsburg that the extra sentence for Monge seemed to be “attributable to conviction of a new crime” and therefore should qualify for double-jeopardy protection.

The California sentencing law “is full of sentencing enhancements that look exactly like separate crimes and that expose the defendant to additional maximum punishment,” Scalia wrote.