Blackledge v. Perry
Citation and Court
417 U.S. 21 (1974), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Perry was convicted of misdemeanor assault in a North Carolina district court and sentenced to six months. He exercised his right to a de novo trial in superior court. The prosecutor then obtained a felony indictment for the same conduct. Perry pleaded guilty to the felony and later sought habeas relief.
Issue
Whether due process bars a prosecutor from bringing more serious charges against a defendant who exercises his statutory right to appeal a conviction for a lesser offense.
Holding
Due process bars a prosecutor from bringing a more serious charge against a defendant solely because that defendant exercised a statutory right to appeal, and the more serious charge is presumptively vindictive in that context.
Rule / Doctrine
Prosecutorial vindictiveness doctrine: when a defendant exercises a legal right and the government responds with a more serious charge, due process is violated if there is a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. After a successful appeal or exercise of an appeal right, a presumption of vindictiveness arises that the prosecution must rebut.
Significance
Blackledge establishes the presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness in the appeal/re-prosecution context and is the foundation for the doctrine later refined in United States v. Goodwin. It protects defendants’ right to seek appellate review without fear of retaliation through upgraded charges.