United States v. DiFrancesco
449 U.S. 117 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute that permits the government to appeal a sentence imposed on a convicted defendant and allows an appellate court to increase that sentence does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. A sentence does not have the same degree of constitutional finality as an acquittal.
Facts:
- Eugene DiFrancesco was involved in an arson-for-hire scheme in the Rochester, New York area between 1970 and 1973, which was responsible for at least eight fires.
- The arson ring collaborated with property owners to set buildings on fire in exchange for a share of the insurance proceeds.
- As a result of these fires, insurance companies were defrauded of approximately $480,000.
- DiFrancesco also participated in the 1970 "Columbus Day bombings," which included the bombing of a federal building in Rochester.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene DiFrancesco was convicted in two separate jury trials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York for racketeering and other federal crimes.
- Prior to the racketeering trial, the Government filed a notice to seek an enhanced sentence, alleging DiFrancesco was a "dangerous special offender" under 18 U.S.C. § 3575.
- Following a hearing, the District Court found DiFrancesco to be a dangerous special offender and imposed a sentence of two concurrent 10-year terms.
- The United States (the appellee) appealed the sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under § 3576, arguing the sentence was too lenient.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the Government's appeal, holding that the statutory provision allowing the appeal violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the constitutional question, which was granted.
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 Organized Crime Control Act's provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3576, which authorizes the United States to appeal a sentence imposed on a dangerous special offender and seek an increase, violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No, the provision authorizing a government appeal of a sentence does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Clause's protection against successive prosecutions and multiple punishments is not offended by an appellate review of a sentence because the pronouncement of a sentence lacks the constitutional finality of an acquittal. Historically, sentences were not treated with the same finality, and this Court's precedents, such as North Carolina v. Pearce, establish that a sentence can be increased after a retrial, meaning the initial sentence is not an implied acquittal of a greater one. The defendant is charged with knowledge of the statute allowing the appeal and thus has no legitimate expectation of finality until the appeal is concluded. A sentence review is not a second trial on guilt or innocence and does not subject the defendant to the same ordeal.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the provision allowing the government to appeal and increase a sentence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The imposition of a sentence is analytically similar to a verdict of acquittal; just as a conviction for a lesser offense is an implied acquittal of a greater offense, the imposition of a specific sentence is an implicit finding that a greater sentence is unwarranted. This factual adjudication should be accorded finality. For a defendant, the sentencing phase is as critical and anxiety-inducing as the guilt-innocence phase, and allowing the government to seek a harsher punishment constitutes a form of multiple punishment. The majority's reliance on the defendant's lack of expectation of finality is circular, as that lack of expectation is created by the very statute being challenged.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the provision violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court has never adequately distinguished the powerful analysis of Justice Harlan in North Carolina v. Pearce, which argued that the concept of an 'implicit acquittal' applies to sentences just as it does to offenses. When a court determines a defendant merits only a certain punishment less than the maximum, it has made a legal determination that a greater punishment is not warranted. Permitting the prosecutor to seek a more severe sentence on appeal is functionally identical to allowing a retrial on a greater offense, which is forbidden by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant distinction between the finality of an acquittal and the finality of a sentence under the Double Jeopardy Clause. It grants Congress the authority to create statutory schemes for sentence review, which can promote sentencing consistency but also subjects defendants to prolonged uncertainty. The ruling clarifies that the core protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause—preventing the ordeal of a second trial on guilt and guarding against government oppression—are not implicated by a limited appellate review of a sentence on the record. This case solidifies the principle that sentencing is a continuous process that is not necessarily complete upon the trial court's initial pronouncement.
