In the case of Angel Jaime Monge v. California (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a retrial following an overturned sentence did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The court's decision was based on its view that sentencing does not place a defendant in jeopardy but is merely part of punishment determination process. Monge had been convicted and sentenced under California’s “Three Strikes” law, with his prior conviction serving as one strike to enhance his current sentence. However, it was later discovered there were procedural errors during his trial regarding proof of this previous conviction; thus, he appealed arguing double jeopardy should prevent him from being resentenced after correcting these errors.

In the dissenting opinion for Angel Jaime Monge v. California, Justice O'Connor disagreed with the majority's decision that a defendant could be retried on sentencing factors after an appellate court found insufficient evidence to support them. She argued that this violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. According to her interpretation, once a jury has made its determination regarding sentencing factors and if these are later overturned due to lack of sufficient evidence, it would constitute double jeopardy to retry those issues in front of another jury or judge. This is because she viewed these as akin to elements of an offense rather than mere methods by which punishment may be increased or decreased.