Moon v. Maryland

Background

A man was convicted of armed robbery in Maryland and sentenced to 12 years. That conviction was reversed on appeal. At a 1966 retrial he was again convicted and received a 20-year sentence, the maximum under Maryland law, and Maryland courts affirmed that sentence. The Supreme Court had agreed to review whether an earlier decision (North Carolina v. Pearce) should apply retroactively.

Reasoning

In Pearce the Court held there is no absolute ban on harsher sentences after retrial, but due process forbids vindictive sentencing and requires that any increased sentence be supported by objective reasons tied to the defendant’s conduct after the original sentencing. After the Supreme Court granted review here, the trial judge filed an affidavit listing objective post-sentencing reasons for the longer term. At oral argument the defendant’s lawyer made clear he was not claiming the judge acted vindictively, saying he never contended the judge was vindictive. Because there was no claim that Pearce’s due-process rule was violated and the record showed objective reasons, the Court dismissed the writ as improvidently granted and did not decide the retroactivity question.

Real world impact

The immediate practical result is that the Maryland defendant’s 20-year sentence remains in place and the Supreme Court did not create a new rule in this case. The Court’s action left unresolved whether Pearce applies to older cases or other situations, so similar disputes may return to lower courts for further resolution.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black concurred in the result; Justice Harlan would have reversed; Justice Douglas dissented, arguing the increased sentence violated double jeopardy principles; Justice Marshall did not participate.