Blackledge v. Perry

Background

A prisoner named Perry was convicted in a North Carolina lower court of a misdemeanor assault and asked for a trial de novo — a brand-new trial in the Superior Court. After he filed that appeal but before the new trial, a state prosecutor obtained a grand jury indictment charging Perry with a more serious felony for the same conduct. Perry pleaded guilty in Superior Court, got a longer potential sentence, and then filed a federal habeas petition claiming the upgraded charge punished him for appealing.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether bringing a more serious charge after a defendant invoked an absolute right to a new trial created a realistic risk of prosecutorial vindictiveness and thus violated due process. Relying on prior decisions about punishment after appeals, the majority held that prosecutors may not “up the ante” with a harsher charge to discourage appeals. The Court concluded that such prosecutorial action could deter defendants from using the statutory right to a new trial and therefore was not constitutionally permissible in these circumstances.

Real world impact

The ruling means people in two-tier state systems can pursue a new trial without the State responding by substituting much more serious charges before that trial. It also means a defendant who pleaded guilty after being indicted in that retaliatory way can still seek federal habeas review because the court should not have had power to try the felony in the first place. Ordinary retrials on the original misdemeanor remain available.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented, warning the majority extended prior rules too far and that guilty pleas should normally bar later federal habeas claims about antecedent defects, potentially unsettling plea bargaining.