NCJ Number
53083
Journal
University of Florida Law Review Volume: 30 Issue: 4 Dated: (SUMMER 1978) Pages: 800-809
Date Published
1978
Length
11 pages
Annotation
THIS IS A CASE COMMENTARY ON A U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH HELD THAT A PROSECUTOR DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS BY SEEKING AN ENHANCED INDICTMENT UNDER A HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE IF A PLEA BARGAIN IS REFUSED.
Abstract
THE DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF FORGING A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,30. THE PROSECUTOR OFFERED TO RECOMMEND A 5-YEAR SENTENCE IN EXCHANGE FOR A GUILTY PLEA. THE DEFENDANT REFUSED. SINCE THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF TWO PRIOR FELONIES, THE PROSECUTOR THEN SOUGHT AND OBTAINED AN ADDITIONAL HABITUAL OFFENDER INDICTMENT, WHICH RESULTED IN A LIFE SENTENCE. THIS CASE COMMENTARY TRACES THE APPEAL THROUGH THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. ON CERTIORARI, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THE PROSECUTOR DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS BY SUBSEQUENTLY SEEKING AN ENHANCED INDICTMENT UNDER A HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE AFTER A PLEA BARGAIN IS REFUSED. THE ISSUE OF PROSECUTORIAL VINDICTIVENESS IS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH. PREVIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE LIMITED THE RIGHTS OF PROSECUTORS TO ENGAGE IN RETALIATORY ACTIONS; THESE DECISIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL. THE LEGAL PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS ARE ALSO REVIEWED. THE BORDENKIRCHER RULING IS SAID TO BE LEGALLY PALATABLE ALTHOUGH THE PARTICULAR FACTS PLACE THE PROSECUTOR IN AN UNFAVORABLE LIGHT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE PLEA BARGAIN PROCESS CANNOT BE SOLVED BY CASE LAW, BUT RATHER BY SPECIFIC CURATIVE LEGISLATION. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES CONTAN REFERENCES AND A COPY OF THE MODEL CODE OF PREARRAIGNMENT PROCEDURE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. (GLR)