## Facts

- Two state prisoners, Clifton A. Pearce (North Carolina) and William S. Rice (Alabama), obtained reversals or partial invalidations of their original convictions through post-conviction proceedings.
- Pearce was originally convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and sentenced to 12–15 years; after reversal due to admission of an involuntary confession, he was reconvicted and sentenced to 15 years, producing a longer total term when combined with time already served.
- Rice was originally convicted on four burglary counts and sentenced to 10 years; after successfully attacking three counts, he was later convicted again and sentenced to 25 years without credit for time served under the earlier sentence.
- In both cases, the resentencing courts imposed a more severe sentence in total effect than the original and did not state reasons in the record for the increase.
- Both prisoners sought federal habeas relief; federal courts held the resentencing unconstitutional, and the courts of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause requires that punishment already served under an invalidated conviction be fully credited when imposing sentence after reconviction for the same offense.
2. Whether due process permits a more severe sentence after reconviction and, if so, what safeguards are required to prevent retaliatory sentencing for successfully attacking an initial conviction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas relief granted below.
- The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids failing to credit time already served when sentencing after reconviction for the same offense.
- The Court held there is no per se constitutional bar to a higher sentence after reconviction within the statutory range.
- The Court held that due process forbids resentencing motivated by judicial retaliation and requires that any increase be supported by reasons that appear in the record and rest on objective, identifiable conduct occurring after the original sentencing.
- Because neither resentencing record contained such recorded, objective reasons for the increased punishment, the resentences were unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- When a conviction is set aside and the defendant is reconvicted for the same offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple punishment by requiring full credit for punishment already served.
- A defendant who secures reversal of a conviction may be retried and, upon reconviction, may receive any lawful sentence within the statutory limits, subject to constitutional constraints.
- Due process requires that the possibility of retaliatory motive play no role in resentencing after a successful appeal or collateral attack.
- When a more severe sentence is imposed after reconviction, the sentencing authority must state reasons that affirmatively appear in the record, and those reasons must be based on objective information concerning identifiable conduct by the defendant occurring after the original sentencing.

## Conclusion

The Court required full credit for time served after reconviction and imposed a due process constraint on increased sentences after retrial: a harsher sentence is permissible only if supported by recorded, objective reasons tied to post-sentencing conduct, ensuring defendants can seek review without fear of retaliation.


North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969)