Bohlen v. Caspari

• Decision Date: 11 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-3360,91-3360
• Citation: 979 F.2d 109
• Parties: Christopher X. BOHLEN, Appellant, v. Paul D. CASPARI; William Webster, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 109

979 F.2d 109

Christopher X. BOHLEN, Appellant, v. Paul D. CASPARI; William Webster, Appellees.

No. 91-3360.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 9, 1992.

Decided Oct. 16, 1992.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied Dec. 8, 1992.

As Amended Dec. 11, 1992.

Richard Holland Sindel, Clayton, Mo., argued, for appellant.

Frank A. Jung, Jefferson City, Mo., argued (William Webster and Frank A. Jung, on the brief), for appellees.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Christopher X. Bohlen appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition by the district court. Bohlen argues that he was subject to double jeopardy at a resentencing hearing where the state was given a second chance to prove that he is a persistent offender under Missouri law. Finding that double jeopardy protections apply to persistent offender sentencing proceedings in Missouri, we reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

Bohlen, on July 1, 1982, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, on three counts of first degree robbery. On October 15, 1982, the trial court sentenced him as a persistent offender to three consecutive fifteen-year terms in prison. The record shows that no evidence of prior convictions was presented either at trial or at the sentencing hearing to prove that Bohlen was a persistent offender.

On direct appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but reversed and remanded for a hearing on the state's allegations of prior convictions and for resentencing if the state could prove Bohlen's persistent offender status beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bohlen, 670 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Mo.Ct.App.1984). At the resentencing hearing, the state introduced evidence of four prior felony convictions. The trial court determined that Bohlen was a persistent offender, and again sentenced him to three consecutive fifteen-year terms. On direct appeal of the second sentence, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the question of double jeopardy was not involved because double jeopardy protections do not apply to sentencing. State v. Bohlen, 698 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Mo.Ct.App.1985).

On September 5, 1989, Bohlen filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Bohlen's petition alleged, among other things, that he was subjected to double jeopardy when the state was allowed to introduce evidence of prior convictions at the second sentencing hearing. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied. Bohlen v. Caspari, No. 89-1651-C(4), Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (E.D.Mo. August 14, 1991) According to the magistrate judge, jeopardy did not attach at the first sentencing hearing because the hearing lacked the hallmarks of an adversarial trial. Id. at 13. Thus, the second sentencing hearing did not violate double jeopardy. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations and denied habeas corpus relief. Bohlen v. Caspari, No. 89-1651-C(4), Order (E.D.Mo. August 28, 1991). Bohlen appeals arguing that the resentencing hearing constituted double jeopardy under the rule announced in Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 101 S.Ct. 1852, 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981).

II. DISCUSSION

The issue in this case is whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, imposed upon the state through the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents resentencing of a defendant in a non-capital case where an appellate court has reversed the defendant's sentence, under a persistent offender statute, for the state's failure to prove any prior convictions. Since Bohlen is before us on collateral review, we must determine as a threshold matter whether applying the double jeopardy rule in Bullington to a non-capital case would constitute a "new rule" for purposes of retroactivity. ¹ Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 313, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2943, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300-01, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1069-70, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989); Newlon v. Armontrout, 885 F.2d 1328, 1331 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1038, 110 S.Ct. 3301, 111 L.Ed.2d 810 (1990). Under Teague, Bohlen may not attack his sentence on federal habeas corpus using a rule of constitutional law established after his sentence became final unless the rule falls into one of two narrow exceptions. ² Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 494-95, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 1263-64, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990); Teague, 489 U.S. at 311-13, 109 S.Ct. at 1075-76. Since we find that extending double jeopardy protection to the Missouri persistent offender sentencing procedure is not a new rule for retroactivity purposes, we do not address the application of the two exceptions here.

A. New Rule Analysis

The Supreme Court has defined a new rule as one which "breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government," or, "[t]o put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's [sentence] became final." Teague, 489 U.S. at 301, 109 S.Ct. at 1070. The Court noted that "[i]t is admittedly often difficult to determine when a case announces a new rule." Id. Difficulties inevitably arise in attempting to distinguish application of a new rule from application of a well-established constitutional principle to a case which is analogous to those considered in prior case law. Penry, 492 U.S. at 314, 109 S.Ct. at 2944. A rule is not new if "a state court considering [petitioner's] claim at the time his [sentence] became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [petitioner] seeks was required by the Constitution." Saffle, 494 U.S. at 488, 110 S.Ct. at 1260.

Bohlen's sentence became final on August 20, 1985, when the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence after remand. State v. Bohlen, 698 S.W.2d 577 (Mo.Ct.App.1985). Since Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) and Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 101 S.Ct. 1852, 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981), were decided before his sentence became final, Bohlen is entitled to the benefit of those decisions under the retroactivity principles announced in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987).

In Burks, the Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy clause forbids retrial of a defendant whose conviction is overturned by an appellate court because of insufficiency of the evidence at trial. Burks, 437 U.S. at 16, 98 S.Ct. at 2149. According to the Court, the reversal for insufficient evidence is tantamount to an implicit acquittal by the trial court. Id. at 18, 98 S.Ct. at 2150. In Bullington, the Court extended this principle to a death penalty sentence enhancement hearing. Bullington, 451 U.S. at 442-43, 101 S.Ct. at 1859-60. The defendant in Bullington was convicted of capital murder and sentenced by the jury after an enhancement hearing to life in prison rather than death, the other alternative under the Missouri statute. After the verdict and sentence, Bullington successfully moved for a new trial. The state then gave notice that it intended to seek the death penalty for a second time. Bullington claimed that the double jeopardy clause barred the imposition of the death penalty because the first jury had declined to impose a death sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court found no double jeopardy implications. The United States Supreme Court reversed.

The Court reasoned that although "[t]he imposition of a particular sentence usually is not regarded as an 'acquittal' of any more severe sentence that could have been imposed," Bullington, 451 U.S. at 438, 101 S.Ct. at 1857, "[b]y enacting a capital sentencing procedure that resembles a trial on the issue of guilt or innocence, ... Missouri explicitly requires the jury to determine whether the prosecution has 'proved its case.' " Id. at 444, 101 S.Ct. at 1861. Under these circumstances, because the jury had failed to find "whatever was necessary" to sentence Bullington to death, imposition of the life sentence acted as an implicit acquittal of the death penalty. Thus, the double jeopardy clause protected Bullington from being subjected to a new hearing where the death penalty might be imposed.

The Court found it significant in deciding to invoke double jeopardy protection that, unlike usual sentencing procedures in which the "sentencer's discretion [is] essentially unfettered," id. at 439, 101 S.Ct. at 1858, the Missouri capital sentencing procedure required a separate hearing where the jury was presented with a choice between two alternatives and standards to guide them in making that choice. Id. at 438, 101 S.Ct. at 1857. The prosecution was not allowed to simply recommend appropriate punishment, but "undertook the burden of establishing certain facts beyond a reasonable doubt in its quest to obtain the harsher of the two alternative verdicts." ³ Id. The Court held that these statutory protections made the Missouri capital sentencing proceeding unlike ordinary sentencing proceedings to which the double jeopardy clause does not apply. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 720, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2078, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). ⁴ The capital sentencing proceeding in Bullington was so similar to a trial on the issue of guilt that Bullington was entitled to double jeopardy protection. Thus, the Court applied the rule announced in Burks--that a defendant may not be retried if he obtains a reversal of his conviction for insufficiency of the evidence--to Bullington.

The persistent offender sentencing enhancement procedure in Missouri has protections similar to those in the capital sentencing hearing in Bullington. A persistent offender is a person who has pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of two or more felonies committed at different times. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 558.016.3 (1986). In order for the court to find that a defendant...