United States v. DiFrancesco - 449 U.S. 117, 101 S. Ct. 426 (1980)

Rule:

Although it might be argued that the defendant perceives the length of his sentence as finally determined when he begins to serve it, and that the trial judge should be prohibited from thereafter increasing the sentence, that argument has no force where, as in the dangerous special offender statute, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 3575, 3576, Congress specifically provides that the sentence is subject to appeal. Under such circumstances there can be no expectation of finality in the original sentence.

Facts:

Respondent was convicted of federal racketeering offenses at a trial in Federal District Court. He was sentenced as a dangerous special offender under 18 U. S. C. § 3575 to two 10-year prison terms, to be served concurrently with each other and with a 9-year sentence previously imposed on convictions at an unrelated federal trial. The United States sought review of the dangerous special offender sentences under § 3576, claiming that the District Court abused its discretion in imposing sentences that amounted to additional imprisonment of respondent for only one year, in the face of the findings the court made after the dangerous special offender hearing. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on double jeopardy grounds. Certiorari was granted.  

Issue:

Did § 3576 violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On certiorari, the Court reversed, holding that the considerations that barred re-prosecution after an acquittal, such as the subjection of a defendant to embarrassment, expense, anxiety, insecurity, and the possibility that he may be found guilty even though innocent, did not apply to the prosecution's statutorily granted right to review a sentence. Because Congress had specifically provided that a sentence under § 3575 was subject to appeal by petitioner, respondent had no expectation of finality in the original sentence. The Court held that the right of review given petitioner under § 3576 did not violate the guarantee against multiple punishment or the guarantee against multiple trials and, thus, did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, U.S. Const. amend. V. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.