No. 91-5952 | SCOTUS | Nov 12, 1991
Lead Opinion
Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
A key question in this case is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to triallike sentence enhancement proceedings in noncapital cases. In Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430" date_filed="1981-05-04" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Bullington v. Missouri">451 U. S. 430 (1981), this Court held that the Clause was implicated in such proceedings in the capital context. We expressly declined to address the applicability of the Clause to noncapital sentence enhancement proceedings in Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33" date_filed="1988-11-14" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Lockhart v. Nelson">488 U. S. 33, 37, n. 6 (1988). The New York Court of Appeals in this case held that Double Jeopardy Clause principles did not preclude the State from seeking a second sentence enhancement after it failed to establish the requisite statutory predicate for enhancement in the first proceeding. 78 N. Y. 2d 932, 933, 579 N.E.2d 208" date_filed="1991-07-01" court="NY" case_name="People v. Hunt">579 N. E. 2d 208 (1991).
Other courts take the contrary view. See, e. g., Durosko v. Lewis, 882 F.2d 357" date_filed="1989-08-07" court="9th Cir." case_name="Michael Allan Durosko v. Samuel A. Lewis Arizona Attorney General">882 F. 2d 357, 359 (CA9 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 907" date_filed="1990-04-23" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Freeman v. City of Lagrange">495 U. S. 907 (1990), and Bullard v. Estelle, 665 F.2d 1347" date_filed="1982-01-20" court="5th Cir." case_name="Charles Edwin Bullard v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections">665 F. 2d 1347, 1361 (CA5 1982), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 459 U.S. 1139" date_filed="1983-01-17" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Estelle v. Bullard">459 U. S. 1139 (1983), both cases holding that double jeopardy analysis applies in sentence enhancement proceedings.
Because this division in authority should be resolved, I believe the Court should grant certiorari.