HIGH COURT THUMPS REPEAT OFFENDERS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The constitutional protection against being tried twice
for the same crime does not protect convicted criminals from a second
sentencing proceeding in non-capital punishment cases, the Supreme Court
ruled Friday.

The 5-4 ruling in a case involving California's ``three strikes'' law makes
it easier for states to impose stiffer sentences on repeat criminals.

The justices said California prosecutors can try a second time to convince a
court to impose an enhanced sentence on a Pomona man who was convicted of
selling marijuana.

The man argued unsuccessfully that once an appeals court ruled his prior
conviction for assault could not be used to enhance his sentence for the
marijuana crime, prosecutors could not seek a retrial of that issue.

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says people cannot be prosecuted twice
for the same crime.

``Many states have chosen to implement procedural safeguards to protect
defendants who may face dramatic increases in their sentences'' for being a
repeat offender, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court. ``We do
not believe that because the states have done so, we are compelled to extend
the double jeopardy bar.''

Angel Jaime Monge's sentence for his 1995 conviction was doubled because his
marijuana conviction was deemed a ``second strike'' - he had been convicted
of assault with a deadly weapon in 1992.

California's 1994 three strikes law calls for doubling the prison sentence
for second convictions and results in sentences ranging from 25 years to
life in prison for a third felony.

A state appeals court upheld Monge's marijuana conviction, but threw out his
doubled sentence, saying there was insufficient proof that he used a
dangerous or deadly weapon during his 1992 crime.

The appeals court also barred prosecutors' attempt to retry that aspect of
the previous case. To do so would violate the protection against double
jeopardy, it said.

But the California Supreme Court cleared the way for such a retrial by
ruling that the double-jeopardy protection does not apply in such
circumstances. On Friday, the nation's highest court agreed Friday.

The Supreme Court previously has ruled that double-jeopardy protection does
apply in death-penalty cases. In 1981, the court said states cannot seek the
death penalty in a second sentencing after a defendant's first jury declined
to impose a death sentence.

But O'Connor said death penalty cases have ``unique circumstances'' and
noted the court generally has ruled that double-jeopardy protections do not
apply to other sentencing proceedings.

Her opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices
Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Scalia wrote for himself, Souter and Ginsburg that the extra sentence for
Monge seemed to be ``attributable to conviction of a new crime'' and
therefore should qualify for double-jeopardy protection.

The California sentencing law ``is full of sentencing enhancements that look
exactly like separate crimes and that expose the defendant to additional
maximum punishment,'' Scalia said.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett