Colten v. Kentucky
407 U.S. 104 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The prophylactic due process rule established in North Carolina v. Pearce, which presumptively bars a more severe sentence upon reconviction after a successful appeal, does not apply to a trial de novo in a two-tier court system because the potential for judicial vindictiveness is not inherent in that process.
Facts:
- David Colten and approximately 15-20 other college students gathered at the Blue Grass Airport in Kentucky for a political demonstration.
- After the demonstration, the students formed a procession of cars on the airport access road.
- A state policeman stopped a car in the procession, driven by a man named Mendez, for having an expired license plate.
- Colten, who was in a separate car, also pulled over, approached the officer, and attempted to engage him in conversation about the traffic summons being issued to Mendez.
- Despite multiple requests from police officers to disperse and return to his car, Colten refused to leave.
- Colten stated he wished to remain to arrange transportation for Mendez and the other occupants of the car.
- After Colten failed to comply with a final order to depart, an officer arrested him for disorderly conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- David Colten was tried for disorderly conduct in the Quarterly Court of Fayette County, Kentucky, an inferior court.
- The Quarterly Court convicted Colten and fined him $10.
- Colten exercised his right to a trial de novo in the Fayette Circuit Court, a court of general jurisdiction.
- Following a bench trial, the Fayette Circuit Court convicted Colten of disorderly conduct and fined him $50.
- Colten appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, arguing the increased sentence violated the rule from North Carolina v. Pearce.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the higher fine.
- The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
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 imposing a greater sentence on a defendant upon reconviction in a trial de novo, as part of a state's two-tier court system for adjudicating misdemeanors, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No. Imposing a greater sentence in a trial de novo under a two-tier system does not violate the Due Process Clause. Unlike a traditional appeal where a conviction is reversed, a trial de novo is a completely fresh determination of guilt or innocence, and the risk of judicial vindictiveness against a defendant for seeking a new trial is not inherent in the system. The court in a trial de novo is not the same court whose work was challenged, nor is it being asked to find error; it is simply providing the defendant with the trial he is entitled to in a court of general jurisdiction. The rationale of North Carolina v. Pearce was to prevent vindictiveness for a successful appeal, but that danger is not present when a defendant simply avails himself of the second stage of a two-tier system designed for speedy and inexpensive disposition of minor offenses. Furthermore, the first-tier 'inferior courts' are often not equipped for error-free trials, so the trial de novo is the defendant's primary path to a full procedural forum, not a penalty for challenging a prior result.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. The rule from North Carolina v. Pearce should apply, and the increased sentence should be reversed. The Kentucky trial de novo is, in effect, the defendant's only form of appeal, and the danger of vindictive sentencing is just as real in this context. The very possibility of a harsher sentence chills a defendant's exercise of their right to seek a new trial, which is precisely the harm Pearce was intended to prevent. The record shows the second judge was aware of the prior, lesser fine and knowingly increased it. The danger of penalizing a defendant for seeking a second trial is inherent in any system where a defendant is tried twice for the same offense, regardless of whether the second trial occurs in a different court.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
This opinion does not directly answer the primary issue regarding sentencing but argues for reversal on First Amendment grounds. Colten's conviction should be set aside because his speech was protected under the First Amendment. Citizens have a right to question and even annoy government officials like the police as part of the right to petition for a redress of grievances. Colten's speech was quiet, non-threatening, and did not involve 'fighting words' or overt disruptive action; therefore, convicting him under the disorderly conduct statute for merely inconveniencing police was unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision creates a significant exception to the rule announced in North Carolina v. Pearce, clarifying that the presumption of vindictiveness does not apply to all resentencing contexts. The Court distinguishes between a traditional appeal that overturns a conviction and a trial de novo that is an integral, automatic part of a state's two-tier adjudication system. This holding validates the two-tier court systems used by many states for minor offenses, allowing them to function without the procedural constraints required by Pearce. The case thus limits the scope of Pearce to situations where there is a realistic likelihood that a resentencing court is punishing a defendant for successfully challenging its own prior work or the work of a lower court in the same direct appellate chain.
