The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, April 28, 1998
Decision: Friday, June 26, 1998
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Double Jeopardy

Advocates

Clifford Gardner (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
David F. Glassman (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Matthew D. Roberts (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Angel Jaime Monge was convicted on three counts of violating California's drug laws, all felonies. Under California's "three-strikes" law a convicted felon with one prior felony conviction will have his prison term doubled. The state sought to have Monge's sentence enhanced based on a previous assault conviction and the resulting prison term. Subsequently the California trial court doubled his sentence and added a one-year enhancement for the prior prison term. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the evidence was insufficient to trigger the sentence enhancement because the prior conviction allegations were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, a retrial to substantiate the allegations would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The California Supreme Court reversed the double jeopardy ruling, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause, though applicable in the capital sentencing context, does not extend to noncapital sentencing proceedings.

Question

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings?

Conclusion

No. In a 5-4 decision, announced by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect convicted criminals from a second sentencing proceeding in noncapital cases. State prosecutors can try a second time to convince a court to impose an enhanced sentence under a state's "three-strikes" law.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Double Jeopardy
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_97_6146/>
(last visited ).