Monge v. California

Monge v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 26, 1998
Full case name	Monge v. California
Citations	524 U.S. 721 ( more )
Holding
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing proceedings.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy David Souter  · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	O'Connor
Dissent	Stevens, 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]

References

1. Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998).
2. Lieberman, Jethro K. (1999). "Double Jeopardy". A Practical Companion to the Constitution. pp. 557–58.

External links

• Text of Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721(1998) is available from: Cornell Findlaw 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 .