Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer

Background

A man was convicted in Philadelphia on 56 counts of forgery and 56 counts of theft. The trial judge gave him two-to-five years on one theft count, five years’ probation on one forgery count, and suspended sentences on the rest. The state appellate courts held that the statute of limitations barred 34 theft counts, including the one carrying prison. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to remand for resentencing on the remaining 22 theft counts, saying the Fifth Amendment protection against being punished twice (double jeopardy) barred resentencing when another sentence was vacated.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court granted review and relied on United States v. DiFrancesco, which said ordinary sentencing does not have the finality of an acquittal and permitted government review of some sentences. The Court said the Pennsylvania court’s reasoning conflicted with DiFrancesco and reversed. The Court sent the case back to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to determine whether state law allowed review of the suspended sentences and for further consideration in light of DiFrancesco. The practical outcome is that the state may be allowed to seek resentencing, subject to state-law limits.

Real world impact

The decision affects how and when states can ask courts to reopen and change sentences after parts of a conviction are undone on appeal. It does not itself change sentences; it sends the question back to the state courts to resolve whether state law permits sentence review. The ruling is not a final merits decision and could change depending on state-law answers.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented from the summary disposition. Justice Stevens argued the Court should have denied review because Pennsylvania law may not have allowed government appeals of sentences at the time and the Commonwealth never tried to appeal the sentences.