450 U.S. 333, 101 S. Ct. 1137, 67 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1981)
Petitioners were convicted of conspiracy to import marihuana (Count I), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963, and conspiracy to distribute marihuana (Count II), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.1
Petitioners received consecutive sentences on each count.2 The length of each of their combined sentences exceeded the maximum five-year sentence which could have been imposed either for a conviction of conspiracy to import or for a conviction of conspiracy to distribute.3
The facts forming the basis of petitioners' convictions are set forth in the panel opinion of the Court of Appeals.4 The petitioners were involved in an agreement, the objectives of which were to import marihuana and then to distribute it domestically.5 Petitioners were charged and convicted under two separate statutory provisions and received consecutive sentences.
The statutes involved in this case are part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.6 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed petitioners' convictions and sentences.7 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether Congress intended consecutive sentences to be imposed for the violation of these two conspiracy statutes and, if so, whether such cumulative punishment violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.8
Whether Congress intended consecutive sentences to be imposed for the violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 963 arising from a single conspiracy with dual objectives?9
The Blockburger rule of statutory construction is used to determine whether Congress has provided that two statutory offenses may be punished cumulatively. The test is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.10
Yes. Petitioners were convicted of conspiracy to import marihuana (Count I), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963, and conspiracy to distribute marihuana (Count II), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Petitioners received consecutive sentences on each count. The length of each of their combined sentences exceeded the maximum five-year sentence which could have been imposed either for a conviction of conspiracy to import or for a conviction of conspiracy to distribute.
The petitioners were involved in an agreement, the objectives of which were to import marihuana and then to distribute it domestically. The statutes involved in this case are part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Section 846 is in Subchapter I of the Act and Section 963 is part of Subchapter II of the Act.11 Sections 846 and 963 specify different ends as the proscribed object of the conspiracy—distribution as opposed to importation—and it is beyond peradventure that each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.12
Congress intended consecutive sentences to be imposed for the violation of these two conspiracy statutes arising from a single conspiracy with dual objectives.13
Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of these two conspiracy statutes violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?14
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense, but the question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is resolved by determining what punishments the Legislative Branch has authorized.15 Where Congress intended to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.16
No. Because Congress intended to permit the imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of section 846 and section 963, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude such punishment.17 Petitioners were convicted under two separate statutory provisions arising from a single agreement with dual objectives of importation and distribution.18 The Blockburger test confirms that the offenses are distinct because each conspiracy statute requires proof of a fact the other does not, with one targeting importation and the other distribution.19 The statutory provisions at issue here clearly satisfy the rule announced in Blockburger and petitioners do not seriously contend otherwise.20
Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.
The imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of these two conspiracy statutes does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall And Justice Stevens
Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's equation of the constitutional question with congressional intent.22 In Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684, 688, the Court said that the question whether punishments imposed by a court after a defendant's conviction upon criminal charges are unconstitutionally multiple cannot be resolved without determining what punishments the Legislative Branch has authorized.23 But that is a far cry from what the Court says today that the question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishments the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed.24
These statements are supported by neither precedent nor reasoning and are unnecessary to reach the Court's conclusion.25 No matter how clearly it spoke, Congress could not constitutionally provide for cumulative punishments unless each statutory offense required proof of a fact that the other did not, under the criterion of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299.26 Since Congress has created two offenses here, and since each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment.27