Alabama v. Smith
490 U.S. 794 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The presumption of judicial vindictiveness, established in North Carolina v. Pearce, does not apply when a defendant receives a more severe sentence after a trial than the sentence they originally received pursuant to a guilty plea that was later invalidated.
Facts:
- James Lewis Smith broke into a woman's home in the middle of the night, wearing a ski mask and underwear and carrying a kitchen knife.
- Holding the knife to the victim's chest, Smith repeatedly raped and sodomized her and forced her to engage in oral sex.
- The assault lasted for more than an hour.
- During the attack, the victim's three young children were asleep in a room across the hall.
- After his arrest, Smith gave a statement to police in which he admitted to many of the details of the offenses.
- At trial, Smith repudiated his post-arrest statement and testified that he was with his girlfriend at the time of the attack.
Procedural Posture:
- An Alabama grand jury indicted James Lewis Smith for burglary, rape, and sodomy.
- Smith pleaded guilty to burglary and rape in exchange for the State dropping the sodomy charge.
- The state trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Smith to concurrent 30-year terms.
- Smith moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed, finding the plea was not properly informed, and vacated the conviction.
- On remand to the same trial judge, the sodomy charge was reinstated, and Smith proceeded to a jury trial on all three charges.
- The jury found Smith guilty on all three counts.
- The trial judge imposed a new, harsher sentence: a life term for burglary, a concurrent life term for sodomy, and a consecutive 150-year term for rape.
- The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the burglary and sodomy sentences but remanded for resentencing on the rape conviction.
- Smith, the appellant, sought review of the burglary sentence in the Supreme Court of Alabama (the state's highest court), which reversed, holding that the increased sentence created an unconstitutional presumption of vindictiveness.
- The State of Alabama, the petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a presumption of judicial vindictiveness arise under the Due Process Clause when a defendant receives a more severe sentence after a trial than the sentence they originally received pursuant to a guilty plea that was later invalidated?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. A presumption of judicial vindictiveness does not arise when a sentence imposed after a trial is greater than a sentence previously imposed after a guilty plea. The Due Process Clause prevents vindictiveness against a defendant for successfully attacking their conviction, and the Pearce presumption was created to guard against that. However, the presumption only applies where there is a 'reasonable likelihood' that the increased sentence is a product of actual vindictiveness. That likelihood is not present here because the information available to a sentencing judge after a full trial is far more comprehensive than the information available after a guilty plea. During a trial, the judge gains a fuller appreciation of the crime's nature and extent, can observe the defendant's character and demeanor, and the original reasons for granting leniency in exchange for the plea are no longer present. Therefore, the defendant must prove actual vindictiveness rather than relying on a presumption.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. Citing a prior concurring opinion from North Carolina v. Pearce, the dissent argues that the guarantee against double jeopardy should prevent any second penalty from exceeding the first penalty when a defendant is convicted a second time after a new trial is granted for any reason. This principle should apply regardless of whether the first conviction resulted from a guilty plea or a trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the due process protection against judicial vindictiveness established in North Carolina v. Pearce. By distinguishing between resentencing after a new trial and resentencing after a withdrawn guilty plea, the Court created a major exception to the Pearce rule. This ruling increases the risk for defendants who successfully challenge their guilty pleas, as they can no longer rely on a presumption of vindictiveness if they receive a harsher sentence after a subsequent trial. The burden now shifts to the defendant to prove actual vindictiveness in such situations, a much more difficult standard to meet.
Unlock the full brief for Alabama v. Smith