Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Andre v. United States

Court of Appeals of The District of Columbia

August 15, 2019

Antoine Andre, Appellant,
v.
United States, Appellee.

          Submitted May 17, 2019

          Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CMD-709-15) (Hon. Robert E. Morin, Trial Judge).

          Robin M. Earnest was on the brief for appellant.

          Jessie 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.

          Before Glickman, Easterly, and McLeese, Associate Judges.

          Glickman, Associate Judge.

         After this court vacated appellant Antoine Andre's 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 court's denial of his motion to dismiss the reinstated charges on double jeopardy grounds.[1] 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. Andre's retrial even assuming the absence of further penal or collateral consequences of a conviction, and affirm the denial of his motion.

         I.

         After a 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.

         The following year, this court issued an unpublished opinion holding that the government had presented sufficient evidence at trial to support Mr. Andre's 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.[2] Perceiving potential merit in this new claim, we granted the petition and issued a revised decision "vacat[ing] the trial court's judgment and remand[ing] to allow the trial court to hold a hearing regarding counsel's conflict and its impact upon counsel's representation of Mr. Andre."[3]

         On remand, the government elected not to contest Mr. Andre's Sixth Amendment claim and instead to proceed directly to retry the charges against him. The court accepted the government's concession, which obviated the need for a hearing and ruling on trial counsel's conflict of interest, and ruled that Mr. Andre therefore was entitled to a new trial without having to prove his Sixth Amendment claim. Mr. Andre opposed retrial and moved to dismiss the information on double jeopardy (and other) grounds. The court denied that motion and Mr. Andre took this appeal.

         II.

         The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."[4] Appellant's claim that the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids his retrial presents a question of law that we review de novo.[5]

         Broadly speaking, the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy "consist[s] of three separate constitutional protections. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense."[6] But as the Supreme Court has explained, "to require a criminal defendant to stand trial again after he has successfully invoked a statutory right of appeal to upset his first conviction is not an act of governmental oppression of the sort against which the Double Jeopardy Clause was intended to protect."[7] Thus, one of the "venerable principles of double jeopardy jurisprudence" is that "[t]he successful appeal of a judgment of conviction, on any ground other than the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, poses no bar to further prosecution on the same charge;"[8] "no limitations whatever," as the Court emphatically put it ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.