May 17, 2019
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(CMD-709-15), (Hon. Robert E. Morin, Trial Judge)
M. Earnest was on the brief for appellant.
K. Liu, United States Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, John
P. Mannarino, Caroline Burrell, Eric Nguyen, and Patricia A.
Heffernan, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the
brief for appellee.
Glickman, Easterly, and McLeese, Associate Judges.
this court vacated appellant Antoine Andres misdemeanor
assault convictions and remanded for further proceedings, the
United States proposed to retry him on the same charges. Mr.
Andre now appeals the trial courts denial of his motion to
dismiss the reinstated charges on double jeopardy
grounds. He argues that the Double Jeopardy
Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars his retrial because he has
completely served the sentence previously imposed on him and
- as the government does not dispute - his reconviction on
the charges would expose him to no additional punishment and
also would have no collateral legal consequences. We reject
this argument, hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not
bar Mr. Andres retrial even assuming the absence of further
penal or collateral consequences of a conviction, and affirm
the denial of his motion.
bench trial in 2015, Mr. Andre was convicted of two counts of
simple assault in violation of D.C. Code § 22-404(a)(1)
(2013Supp.). The court sentenced him to consecutive 180-day
terms of imprisonment, suspended the execution of that
sentence as to all but seven days on each count, and placed
him on probation for concurrent terms of one year on each
count. He finished serving this sentence in 2016, while his
appeal was still pending.
following year, this court issued an unpublished opinion
holding that the government had presented sufficient evidence
at trial to support Mr. Andres simple assault convictions
and that his other claims of error also did not entitle him
to relief. But in a petition for rehearing, Mr. Andre
asserted the new claim that he had been deprived of his Sixth
Amendment right to conflict-free representation at
trial. Perceiving potential merit in this new
claim, we granted the petition and issued a revised decision
"vacat[ing] the trial courts judgment and remand[ing]
to allow the trial court to hold a hearing regarding
counsels conflict and its impact upon counsels
representation of Mr. Andre."
remand, the government elected not to contest Mr. Andres
Sixth Amendment claim and instead to proceed directly to
retry the charges against him. The court accepted the
governments concession, which obviated the need for a
hearing and ruling on trial counsels conflict of interest,
and ruled that Mr. Andre therefore was entitled to a new
trial without having to prove his ...