Submitted on Briefs after Remand from the Supreme Court of the U. S. October 22, 1980.
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROSENN, Circuit Judge.
When this appeal first came to this court for review, United States v. Busic, 587 F.2d 577 (3d Cir. 1978), we considered the question of whether a court could validly impose consecutive sentences upon defendant LaRocca for the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. § 111, and for the crime of use of a firearm to commit that felony, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), when the dangerous weapon used in the assault is a firearm. We concluded that such sentencing
In light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), we granted the Government's petition for rehearing and vacated our double jeopardy holding with respect to LaRocca on the ground that there was no reason to reach the constitutional question. 587 F.2d 577, 587-89 (3d Cir. 1978). In Simpson the Court reviewed sentences under section 924(c) in conjunction with sentences imposed for bank robberies with the use of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and held that in a prosecution growing out of a single transaction of bank robbery with firearms, a defendant may not be sentenced under both section 2113(d) and section 924(c). We thereafter reached a nearly identical conclusion as a matter of statutory construction that LaRocca's sentence could not be augmented under both section 111 and section 924(c) but that he could be sentenced under either at the Government's election. We did not alter our holding as to Busic.
The defendants thereupon successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for writs of certiorari to this court. 442 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 2835, 61 L.Ed.2d 282 (1979). The Supreme Court reversed in both cases and remanded to this court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. In the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Government urged that should the Court find section 924(c) to be inapplicable to the defendants, it should not only vacate the section 924(c) sentences but also those imposed by the district court under section 111. This, the Government asserted, would permit the district court to resentence the defendants under the enhancement provision of section 111 and thus carry out its initial intention to deal severely with the armed assaults now knowing that it had impermissibly relied on the enhancement provisions of section 924(c). Because this court had not considered this contention, the Supreme Court expressed no opinion as to whether in the particular circumstances of this case such a disposition would be permissible. Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 412 n. 19, 100 S.Ct. 1747, 1756 n. 19, 64 L.Ed.2d 381 (1980). We believe it is permissible and we vacate each of the sentences and remand to the district court for sentencing under section 111 and for dismissal of the counts under section 924(c).
Because the facts are fully and clearly set forth in this court's initial opinion, United States v. Busic, 587 F.2d 577 (3d Cir. 1978), we merely recapitulate them in the language of the Supreme Court.
Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 399, 100 S.Ct. 1747, 1749, 64 L.Ed.2d 381 (1980) (footnotes omitted).
The issue before us now, as briefed by the parties, is whether in light of Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), and the standards for sentencing enunciated by the Court in Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 412 n. 19, 100 S.Ct. 1749, 1756 n. 19, 64 L.Ed.2d 381 (1980), we may not only vacate the sentences imposed in this proceeding under section 924(c), but also those imposed by the district court under section 111 and remand the section 111 convictions to the district court for sentencing de novo.
On the other hand, the Government argues that the district court could have sentenced each defendant to 10 years imprisonment on each of the assault counts (counts six and seven) because of their use of a deadly weapon. Instead, the court sentenced them to five years imprisonment concurrent on each count under section 111 and 20 years imprisonment under section 924(c) (counts eighteen and nineteen respectively) because of the use of firearms. If the sentences under section 924(c) are vacated, the Government's argument continues, the defendants will have had their sentences for the armed assaults on federal officers reduced from 25 years imprisonment to five years because of the intervening decision of the Court in Simpson v. United States, supra. In support of this contention the Government presents a twofold argument. First, it urges that contrary to existing case law, this court should hold that when a defendant's punishment on one or more counts arising out of the same criminal conduct is vacated, the defendant may be resentenced on the other related counts. Second, the Government maintains that the sentences imposed under counts 6 and 7 may be increased because defendants had in fact not yet begun to serve them.
Although the principle underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223-224, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957), quoted with approval in United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 87, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2191, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1977). The Court identified "three separate constitutional protections" afforded by the guarantee against double jeopardy:
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2073, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (footnotes omitted).
The Supreme Court has consistently treated acquittals on the facts of the case differently from sentencing for double jeopardy purposes. See United States v. DiFrancesco, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 101 S.Ct. 426, 433, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980). Commencing with United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896), and Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, 24 S.Ct. 797, 49 L.Ed. 114 (1904), it has unequivocally held that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial following acquittal on the facts. The Court described as perhaps most fundamental in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence the rule that a verdict determining the innocence of the defendant will not be reviewed, on error or
The terms of the Double Jeopardy Clause, however, are not self-defining and the Supreme Court has never applied them absolutely when a first trial did not end in an acquittal on the facts. See United States v. DiFrancesco, ___ U.S. at ___, 101 S.Ct. at 433. The Court has not construed a second trial following a reversal of a conviction on appeal as violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, even though the second trial would subject the defendant to expense, the ordeal of "a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity," and would enhance the risk that he may be found guilty. Thus, in United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 84 S.Ct. 1587, 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964), the Court held that the retrial of a defendant whose conviction was set aside on collateral attack for prejudicial error in the proceedings was not barred for double jeopardy. In so holding, the Court observed that the principle that the double jeopardy provision of the fifth amendment does not bar the retrial of a defendant whose conviction is set aside because of error in the proceedings leading to his conviction "is a well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence." Id. at 465, 84 S.Ct. at 1589. In United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975), the district court had dismissed the indictment after the jury had returned a guilty verdict. The court of appeals dismissed the Government's appeal on the ground that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred review of the district court's ruling. In reversing the court of appeals and reinstating the verdict, the Supreme Court observed that
Id. at 345, 95 S.Ct. at 1023 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
In mistrial cases, the Court has also followed a similar rationale. As early as United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824), the Supreme Court has held that a discharge of a "hung jury" without the consent of the defendant did not bar a subsequent trial for the same offense. Whenever proper reasons are ascribed for a mistrial, the courts have held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a second trial, "even though such a trial would implicate many of the interests safeguarded by the Double Jeopardy Clause." Stern, Government Appeals of Sentences: A Constitutional Response to Arbitrary and Unreasonable Sentences, 18 Am.Crim.L.Rev. 51, 57 (1980) (hereinafter cited as Government Appeals of Sentences).
This court has also had occasion to consider the increase of a sentence previously imposed. In United States v. Bozza, 155 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1946), the trial judge imposed a prison sentence only to discover later in the day that the statute also imposed a mandatory fine. He therefore recalled the prisoner, who was at a local federal detention jail awaiting transportation to the penitentiary where he was finally to be confined, and augmented the prison sentence with a fine. On appeal, we acknowledged that a judge is powerless to increase a validly imposed sentence after the prisoner has begun to serve it. However, we permitted the increase in Bozza because the sentence initially imposed varied from the statutory requirements and was therefore void. As such, it could be superseded by a new sentence in conformance with the statute, even though it entails greater punishment and "occurs after sentence has been partially served after the term of court has expired." Id. at 595 (citations omitted). On appeal, the Supreme Court approved this disposition, rejecting the doctrine that a guilty prisoner is to escape punishment because the court committed an error in passing sentence. Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160, 166, 67 S.Ct. 645, 648, 91 L.Ed. 818 (1947). The correction of the sentence, even though it increased the punishment, "did not twice put [the defendant] in jeopardy for the same offense." Id. at 167, 67 S.Ct. at 649.
In Bozza, the sentence was invalid on its face; in the instant case, the sentence was invalid as applied. Otherwise, there is no double jeopardy difference between the two cases. The Government here does not seek imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense but only remand to the district court for resentencing on the section 111 counts subject to (1) the maximum penalties prescribed by Congress in that statute, and (2) the restriction that the new sentence for the armed assault offenses not exceed the original aggregate sentence imposed for those offenses.
In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), the Court, inter alia, considered the question of whether constitutional limitations restrict the imposition of a more severe sentence after reconviction. It stated unequivocally that since Stroud v. United States, supra, it has been settled that the power to retry a defendant is the power, upon his reconviction, to impose whatever sentence may be legally authorized, "whether or not it is greater than the sentence imposed after the first conviction." Id. at 720, 89 S.Ct. at 2078. The rationale for this well-established doctrine, despite its various articulations, "rests ultimately upon the premise that the original conviction has, at the defendant's behest, been wholly nullified and the slate wiped clean." Id. at 721, 89 S.Ct. at 2078. The Double Jeopardy Clause, therefore, does not impose an absolute bar to a more severe sentence upon reconviction.
In the case at bar the defendants contend that they did not appeal their section 111 convictions and the sentences imposed, and the Government did not cross-appeal. However, it is evident that the district court structured its sentence on the erroneous assumption that punishment for the defendants' conduct could be distributed under both section 111 and section 924(c). In fact, the court imposed the heaviest punishment under section 924(c). When the defendants successfully appealed their convictions under section 924(c) and obtained reversals, the court's sentencing plan, based on the aggregate conviction for the criminal assault on the federal officers with firearms, was thwarted. In such a case, where the sentences were interdependent, we believe an appellate court, vacating one of those sentences, can vacate the other sentence even if its imposition is not specifically raised on appeal.
The Double Jeopardy Clause appears to have been drafted with common law jeopardy principles in mind. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 341-42, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1020-1021, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 200-01, 78 S.Ct. 221, 230-231, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Nothing in the history or policy of the clause suggests that its purposes included protecting the finality of a sentence and thereby barring resentencing to correct a sentence entered illegally or erroneously. The settled practice in most federal courts over the years has permitted resentencing and the imposition of a harsher sentence if the defendant had not yet commenced serving his sentence.
Since our decision in United States v. Bozza, supra, this court, however, has had before it a number of cases which have held that an increase in the severity of punishment upon resentencing offended the Double Jeopardy Clause. In United States v. Fredenburgh, 602 F.2d 1143 (3d Cir. 1979), the defendant had been convicted on 13 counts charging misapplication of bank funds, a conspiracy count, and two counts charging the making of false statements in
We concluded that the sentences imposed after remand contravened our direction in Gallagher I and violated Fredenburgh's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Citing our earlier decision in United States v. Welty, 426 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1970), and the Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874), we held that when a case is remanded for resentencing, double jeopardy jurisprudence prohibits the trial judge from imposing a harsher sentence than that imposed initially. United States v. Fredenburgh, 602 F.2d at 1148. Furthermore, in Welty we specifically stated:
426 F.2d at 619. Accord, Government of Virgin Islands v. Henry, 533 F.2d 876, 879 (3d Cir. 1976).
An examination of Fredenburgh and the cases relied upon by it persuades us that they were influenced by the now discredited decisions in Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1873), and United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354 (1931). Ex Parte Lange, as we have already indicated, see note 6 supra, did not involve the alteration or increase of a sentence. There, the defendant had in fact fully satisfied his sentence when he paid the fine imposed. Because the statute under which he was sentenced only conferred power to punish by fine or imprisonment, the Court concluded that the court's power to punish further by imprisonment was gone. "To do so is to punish him twice for the same offense." 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) at 175.
United States v. Benz, supra, is also inapplicable to the case at bar. We improvidently relied on dictum in Benz that a sentence may not be amended to increase the term of punishment because it subjects the defendant to double punishment. Benz, however, involved the power of the district court which had imposed a sentence of imprisonment upon a defendant to amend the sentence by reducing the term of imprisonment, although the defendant had already commenced service of the sentence. The broad dictum of Benz is inexplicable and appears to be based upon a misreading of Ex Parte Lange. The dictum has since been rejected by the rationale of the Court in Bozza v. United States, supra.
Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. at 166-67, 67 S.Ct. at 648-649.
The very recent case of United States v. DiFrancesco, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980), lends support to our
In the instant case, the defendants were convicted by a jury of serious offenses. In structuring the plan of sentencing, the trial judge did not impose the maximum sentence permitted by statute on the armed assault crimes committed by the defendants but chose to spread his sentence over each of the counts upon which defendants had been convicted, allocating the heavier period of imprisonment to the convictions under section 924(c)(2). Vacating all of the assault sentences as urged now by the Government in light of the Court's reversal of the convictions under section 924(c)(2) and permitting resentencing on the convictions which are affirmed does not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution because another trial is not required. No additional record needs to be made. Resentencing does not permit the prosecution a "second crack" at supplying evidence. As in United States v. Wilson, supra, it involves merely a correction caused by an error of law "without subjecting [the defendants] to a second trial before a second trier of fact." 420 U.S. at 345, 95 S.Ct. at 1023. Resentencing will be limited to the counts upon which the defendants were convicted and which have not been reversed. Unlike Green, the sentences imposed initially on these counts did not expressly or implicitly find the defendants innocent of any more serious offense under the statute. Defendants would only be resentenced on the same record for the very same offenses for which they had been convicted.
Upon resentencing, the district court would now be able to impose sentence knowing that section 924(c)(2) is not available to it for sentencing in this case. If it elects to augment the term of imprisonment on the armed assaults committed in violation of section 111, such increase would not constitute double punishment. The defendants are not twice punished for the same offense. "To hold otherwise would allow the guilty to escape punishment through a legal accident." Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361, 77 S.Ct. 481, 485, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957).
If the guarantee against double jeopardy "imposes no restriction upon the length of a sentence imposed upon reconviction," North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. at 719, 89 S.Ct. at 2077, we see no valid reason why the guarantee against double jeopardy precludes the district judge in this case from imposing a more severe sentence, if he elects to do so, on the counts under section 111 when the totality of the sentence for
We see no plausible reason why the double jeopardy provision should bar resentencing in the circumstances presented here. Such a sentence is not barred by the rule regarding acquittals after a jury verdict or the rule relating to double punishment. As in Pearce, supra, the defendants instituted the appellate proceedings which rendered the armed assault sentences impermissible and which gives rise to the need for resentencing. This is not a case in which the Government instituted action to augment the defendants' punishment; there is no "act of governmental oppression of the sort against which the double jeopardy clause was intended to protect." United States v. Scott, supra, 437 U.S. at 91, 98 S.Ct. at 2194. Furthermore, the composite sentences imposed under section 924(c) and section 111 derive from the same armed assaults on federal officers. On remand for resentencing, the defendants would not be subject to any greater sentence for the armed assaults than the 25 years imprisonment initially imposed (including credit for time already served, if any), see North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, 395 U.S. at 717-19, 89 S.Ct. at 2076-2077; they could suffer no multiple or even enhanced punishment for those offenses.
The defendants argue, however, that where the Court has permitted resentencing, Bozza v. United States, supra, and Murphy v. United States, 177 U.S. 155, 20 S.Ct. 639, 44 L.Ed. 711 (1900), the sentences corrected, unlike the section 111 counts involved in this case, did not conform to the statute and were thus correctible. For double jeopardy purposes, however, the test is not whether the initial sentence conformed to statute, but whether the resentencing imposes punishment for an offense for which the defendant has already been punished. If the defendants have not twice been punished for the same offense, they have no basis to complain that they were put in double jeopardy.
Stern, Government Appeal of Sentences, 18 Am.Crim.L.Rev. at 74 (footnotes omitted). In this connection, the Government contends that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a defendant from being resentenced on the outstanding counts if his conviction on the other counts is overturned on his appeal, provided the new sentence is within the maximum penalty authorized by statute
The Government finds support for this contention in the recent decision of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hodges, 628 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1980). In that case, too, the district court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for violations under different statutes. The cumulative penalty exceeded by six months the maximum penalty allowable under either statute. The court of appeals thus had before it the question of whether the district court on remand must merely vacate one of the two sentences, or whether it may additionally resentence the defendant to the maximum five-year term prescribed for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a). The court held that resentencing on remand to the maximum penalty authorized by law is permitted when the aggregate of the illegally imposed consecutive sentences equals or exceeds the maximum for which the court lawfully could have sentenced the defendant. In holding that resentencing did not subject the defendant to double jeopardy, the court noted that
628 F.2d at 353 n. 3.
In the case at bar resentencing also will necessarily not exceed the punishment previously meted out to defendants under the aggregate sentence. The 20-year sentences imposed under section 924(c) are reversed and must be vacated. If they are resentenced under the enhanced penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 111, the maximum term of imprisonment may not exceed ten years on any count. The sentences imposed for the armed assault were anchored in section 924(c). That anchor has been uprooted in this case. As in the case of a defendant who has received an illegal sentence, there is no double jeopardy reason why the trial judge should not in these circumstances also have an opportunity to reconstruct his sentencing plan. Vacating the sentence and permitting resentencing is merely "an effort to cope with errors of the kind that will always occur, regardless how refined a procedural system may be. It is designed to serve a state interest that cannot be adequately served by any alternative means." Westen, The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy, supra note 2, at 1044.
Balancing the defendants' right to a sentence not in excess of that prescribed by law is the societal interest in punishing them when their guilt has been established after a fair trial. See United States v. Tateo, supra, 377 U.S. at 466, 84 S.Ct. at 1589; United States v. Scott, supra, 437 U.S. at 92, 98 S.Ct. at 2194. Inherent in this societal interest is the fundamental principle that a convicted felon should receive a sentence appropriate to the gravity of the offense and the character and propensities of the offender. In vacating the section 111 sentences and permitting resentencing
We therefore hold that when a defendant has been convicted after trial and sentenced under a multi-count indictment and on appeal his conviction and sentence as to certain counts is set aside because such counts enhanced the sentence for the predicate felony which contained its own enhancement provision, the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy does not preclude vacating the sentence on the predicate felony counts and the imposition of a new sentence by the trial judge on the remaining counts, which may be greater than, less than, or the same as the original sentence.
Accordingly, the sentences imposed upon the defendants under section 924(c) and section 111 will be vacated. The case will be remanded to the district court for resentencing under section 111 on counts six and seven and for dismissal of counts eighteen and nineteen.
Cases from other circuits cited by Busic are, in order of circuit, United States v. Frady, 607 F.2d 383 (D.C.Cir.1979); Borum v. United States, 409 F.2d 433 (D.C.Cir.1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916, 89 S.Ct. 1765, 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969); United States v. Bynoe, 562 F.2d 126 (1st Cir. 1977); United States v. Sacco, 367 F.2d 368 (2d Cir. 1966); Whaley v. North Carolina, 379 F.2d 221 (4th Cir. 1967); Chandler v. United States, 468 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Adams, 362 F.2d 210 (6th Cir. 1966); United States v. Turner, 518 F.2d 14 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Durbin, 542 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Edick, 603 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Best, 571 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1978); Kennedy v. United States, 330 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1964); Owensby v. United States, 385 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1967).
The holdings in these cases may be subject to reexamination following the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. DiFrancesco, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980). The Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit, which had struck down a federal statute that permits the Government under certain conditions to appeal sentences imposed on "dangerous special offenders." 18 U.S.C. § 3575 (1976). In so doing the Court held that the appeal provision of that statute, allowing the Government to seek more severe sentences, did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. For an analysis of the issues presented in DiFrancesco, see Westen, The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences, 78 Mich.L.Rev. 1001 (1980).
To the extent that our decisions in United States v. Fredenburgh, supra 602 F.2d 1143; Government of Virgin Islands v. Henry, supra, 533 F.2d 876; United States v. Corson, supra, 449 F.2d 544; United States v. Welty, supra, 426 F.2d 615; may be inconsistent with this opinion, they are overruled.
Because this decision overrules prior precedents of this court, in accordance with our Internal Operating Procedures, Chapter VIII, C., we entered an order on December 2, 1980, directing that the case be considered en banc. In light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. DiFrancesco, supra, providing a further basis for this opinion, we vacated the order directing en banc consideration.