Monge v. California
| Monge v. California | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 28, 1998 Decided June 26, 1998 | |
| Full case name | Monge v. California |
| Citations | 524 U.S. 721 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | People v. Monge, 941 P.2d 1121 (Cal. 1997) |
| Holding | |
| The Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings.[1][2]
Background
California's three-strikes law provides, among other things, that a convicted felon with one prior conviction for a serious felony—such as assault where the felon inflicted great bodily injury or personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon—will have his prison term doubled. Under California law, a number of procedural safeguards surround the assessment of prior conviction allegations: Defendants may invoke the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination; the prosecution must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt; and the rules of evidence apply.[1]
After Monge was convicted on three counts of violating California drug laws, the State sought to have his sentence enhanced based on a previous assault conviction and the resulting prison term. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor asserted that petitioner had personally used a stick during the assault but introduced into evidence only a prison record showing that he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and had served a prison term for the offense. Finding both sentencing allegations true, the trial court doubled Monge's sentence on count one and added a 1-year enhancement for the prior prison term.[1]
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, and that a remand for retrial on the sentence enhancement would violate double jeopardy principles. The California Supreme Court reversed the double jeopardy ruling. A plurality held that the Double Jeopardy Clause, though applicable in the capital sentencing context per Bullington v. Missouri, does not extend to non-capital sentencing proceedings.[1]
Opinion of the court
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 26, 1998.[1]
Subsequent developments
References
External links
- Text of Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Internet Archive (docket files) Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.