# Commonwealth v. Henderson

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 5, 1978 · 482 Pa. 359

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650234

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Shirley HENDERSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 5, 1978
- **Citations:** 482 Pa. 359; 393 A.2d 1146; 1978 Pa. LEXIS 979
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Manderino
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino, Larsen
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650234

## Opinion text

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The double jeopardy clause protects, among other things, multiple punishment for the same offense. The principles that prompted the United States Supreme Court to conclude that the double jeopardy protection does not prohibit imposition of a more severe sentence after retrial and conviction where the original conviction had been set aside at the request of the defendant, have no application to this case. Here there has been no retrial. Here, simply stated, appellant was given a more severe sentence following the Superior Court’s remand for sentencing than she originally received. The reason behind the court’s imposition of a more severe sentence is irrelevant: The fact remains that appellant was sentenced twice for an offense for which she was tried and convicted only once. Such multiple sentencing is prohibited by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Furthermore, the majority’s conclusion that Pennsylvania’s double jeopardy clause is applicable only in capital cases is based on previous decisions of this court which were wrong when decided and which are still wrong. Surely, Pennsylvania’s constitution does not permit a citizen to be *377 convicted of robbery after that citizen has been tried and acquitted of the same charges.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650234. Public record. Not legal advice.