## Facts

- Nelson pleaded guilty in Arkansas state court to a Class B felony.
- In a separate habitual-offender sentencing proceeding, the State sought an enhanced sentence under a statute requiring proof of at least four prior felony convictions.
- The State introduced four certified prior felony convictions, and the jury imposed an enhanced sentence.
- One of the four prior convictions had been pardoned before the habitual-offender proceeding, making it unusable for enhancement under state law.
- Years later, Nelson sought federal habeas relief, arguing the enhanced sentence was invalid and that a new habitual-offender proceeding would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The federal district court set aside the enhanced sentence and, treating the case as evidentiary insufficiency under Burks, barred the State from conducting a new habitual-offender proceeding with different proof.
- The court of appeals affirmed on the ground that, excluding the pardoned conviction, the remaining proof was insufficient to support the enhancement.
- The Supreme Court reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a new habitual-offender sentencing proceeding when the original enhancement is vacated due to erroneous admission of one prior conviction and the remaining properly admissible evidence would be insufficient.
2. In deciding whether retrial is barred for insufficiency, whether a reviewing court must assess sufficiency based on all evidence actually admitted at the first proceeding, including evidence admitted in error.

## Decision

- The Court held that double jeopardy did not bar a new habitual-offender sentencing proceeding.
- For double jeopardy sufficiency analysis, courts must consider the totality of evidence admitted at the first proceeding, even if some evidence was admitted erroneously.
- Because the four prior convictions admitted at the first habitual-offender proceeding were sufficient to support the enhancement, the State could seek resentencing using properly admissible prior convictions.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Retrial is generally permitted when a conviction or sentence is set aside due to trial error, including erroneous admission of evidence.
- Retrial is barred only when a reversal rests on evidentiary insufficiency, which is treated as the equivalent of an acquittal.
- When a reviewing court reverses because evidence was erroneously admitted, double jeopardy does not bar retrial if the evidence actually admitted—whether properly or improperly—was sufficient to support the verdict or enhancement.
- In assessing sufficiency for double jeopardy purposes, a reviewing court must evaluate all evidence the factfinder heard and the trial court admitted, not only the subset that should have been admitted.

## Conclusion

A defendant may be retried or resentenced after reversal for erroneous admission of evidence, even if the remaining admissible evidence would have been insufficient, so long as the evidence actually admitted at the first proceeding was sufficient to support the result.


Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988)