Albernaz et al. v. United States
450 U.S. 333 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of two distinct criminal conspiracy statutes arising from a single agreement, provided Congress intended to authorize cumulative punishment. Congressional intent to create separate offenses is determined by the Blockburger test, which is satisfied if each statutory provision requires proof of a fact that the other does not.
Facts:
- Petitioners were involved in a single criminal agreement.
- The agreement had two objectives.
- The first objective was to import marihuana into the United States.
- The second objective was to distribute that marihuana domestically.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners were charged in a federal trial court with conspiracy to import marihuana and conspiracy to distribute marihuana.
- Following a trial, petitioners were convicted on both counts.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for each conviction.
- Petitioners appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
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 the imposition of consecutive sentences for convictions of conspiracy to import marihuana (21 U.S.C. § 963) and conspiracy to distribute marihuana (21 U.S.C. § 846), when both charges arise from a single agreement, violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, the imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The initial question is one of statutory construction to determine whether Congress intended to authorize cumulative punishment. The Blockburger test is the appropriate tool for this analysis, which asks if each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not. Here, conspiracy to import requires proof of an agreement to import, while conspiracy to distribute requires proof of an agreement to distribute; thus, they are separate offenses under the test, and the presumption is that Congress intended to permit multiple punishments. With congressional intent established, the constitutional inquiry under the Double Jeopardy Clause is resolved, as the Clause's protection against multiple punishments at a single trial is limited to ensuring the sentence does not exceed legislative authorization.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
No, the sentences are permissible, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. The majority incorrectly equates the constitutional limit of the Double Jeopardy Clause with congressional intent. The Clause provides a constitutional protection independent of legislative will; Congress cannot authorize cumulative punishment for two offenses unless they each require proof of a fact the other does not, as laid out in Blockburger. In this case, the two conspiracy offenses do satisfy the Blockburger test, making them distinct offenses for constitutional purposes. Therefore, the consecutive sentences are constitutionally permissible, not merely because Congress intended it, but because the offenses are substantively different under the governing constitutional standard.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Blockburger test as the primary tool for determining legislative intent regarding cumulative punishments for a single criminal transaction that violates multiple statutes. The majority's holding is significant for effectively merging the Double Jeopardy analysis for multiple punishments with the statutory interpretation of congressional intent. This approach suggests that as long as Congress clearly defines two separate offenses (per Blockburger), the Double Jeopardy Clause provides no independent barrier to cumulative sentencing, a view strongly contested by the concurrence. The case thus narrows the scope of the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection against multiple punishments in a single proceeding, making legislative intent paramount.
Unlock the full brief for Albernaz et al. v. United States