United States v. Bishop, 73-1269.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 73-1269.,73-1269.
• Citation: 487 F.2d 631
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

487 F.2d 631 (1973)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 73-1269.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Submitted November 5, 1973.

Decided November 20, 1973.

Dennis E. Curtis, New Haven, Conn., pro hac vice on brief, for defendant-appellant.

James N. Gabriel, U.S. Atty., and Wayne B. Hollingsworth, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a resentencing on the ground that the second sentence was an impermissible increase over the first, in violation of the rule laid down in North Carolina v. Pearce, 1969, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656. Procedurally, the case comes before us as the result of the denial of a F.R. Crim.P. 35 motion asserting that the second sentence was illegal as matter of law.

The facts are these. Defendant was convicted on two counts for distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Asserting that he was an addict, he requested that he be sentenced under Title II of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, 18 U.S.C. §§ 4251-4255 hereinafter NARA.¹ The court, because section 4251(f)(4) made the act inapplicable to a defendant having two or more prior felony convictions, felt obliged to impose sentence, instead, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for a period of five years imprisonment, with the additional special mandatory parole term of three years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1)(A). Defendant appealed. His claim that heroin addiction was a total bar to prosecution for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 was rejected, but we upheld his alternative claim that the provisions excluding recidivists was unconstitutitonal and remanded the case for reconsideration of his eligibility under NARA. United States v. Bishop, 1 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1337. Thereafter, upon consideration of the factors outlined in the act, the district court committed defendant "to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for an indeterminate period pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 4253 of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act."

Section 4253(a) reads as follows.

"§ 4253. Commitment

(a) Following the examination provided for in section 4252, if the court determines that an eligible offender is an addict and is likely to be rehabilitated through treatment, it shall commit him to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment under this chapter except that no offender shall be committed under this chapter, if the Attorney General certifies that adequate facilities or personnel for treatment are unavailable. Such committment shall be for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed ten years, but in no event shall it exceed the maximum sentence that could otherwise have been imposed."

We agree with the defendant that his sentence provides for the ten year maximum term. His position is that the final clause of section 4253(a) should have been looked to in the light of Pearce and that the maximum should have been limited to the term of the sentence originally imposed. The district court denied this motion, in part because the ten year sentence is mandatory and "being for treatment subject to the conditional release provisions of section 4254² is not harsher³ than the original sentence. Hence North Carolina v. Pearce, 1969, 395 U.S. 711 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 does not apply."

Nothing in Pearce warrants the government's suggestion that Pearce is a procedural rule, to be avoided by the fact that the resentencing was by a different judge. See also, Marano v. United States, 1 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 583, 585. Nor do we think the court could rule as matter of law that commitment under NARA was less harsh than defendant's original sentence; the two sentences do not seem sufficiently comparable to permit such a flat statement. Cf. Baughman v. United States, 8 Cir., 1971, 450 F.2d 1217, cert. denied, 406 U.S. 923, 92 S.Ct. 1791, 32 L.Ed.2d 123; Freeman v. United States, 9 Cir., 1965, 350 F.2d 940. But assuming that, since the later sentence is of longer potential duration, it is to be considered more severe, it does not follow that Pearce would be applicable. On the contrary, we hold that it is not.

In North Carolina v. Pearce the Court held that after a conviction had been reversed on the ground of error committed in the course of trial, the court, following retrial, could not impose a longer sentence than the one imposed originally. The Court did not make this an absolute rule, but held that due process required the elimination of the appearance of any possible "vindictiveness" or "retaliatory motivation" in the resentencing lest the fear of such deter defendants from prosecuting meritorious appeals. The Court stated that such possibility could be sufficiently rebutted, for example, if the court found that after the original sentencing, defendant's subsequent conduct warranted a longer sentence. 395 U.S. at 726, 85 S.Ct. 2072. That eliminating the possibility of vindictiveness, rather than prohibiting any increase in sentence as such, is the basis of the Pearce rule was recently emphasized by Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 1973, 412 U.S. 17, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 36 L.Ed.2d 714, which upheld a longer sentence imposed on retrial by a jury unaware of the first one.

The complexities that may occur in this area are obvious. We see none, however, in the present case. The new sentence was not some collateral consequence visited upon the defendant following the assertion of error in the first conviction. Rather, it is precisely what defe...