Hanson

When a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California's constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing. ( People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 495-497 , 35 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 386 P.2d 677 ( Henderson ).) The question here is whether a statutorily mandated restitution fine comes within this rule. We conclude such fines constitute punishment and find no principled basis for excluding them from the rationale of Henderson . Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld a $9,000 increase in defendant's restitution fine on resentencing.

A jury convicted defendant Melvin Eugene Hanson of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); all undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), three counts of insurance fraud former Ins.Code, § 556, now Ins.Code, § 1871.1), two counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, former subd. 1), and conspiracy to commit these crimes ( id., § 182). It also found true a special circumstance allegation ( id., § 190.2, subd. (a)(1)) and two excessive taking allegations ( id., § 12022.6, subd. (b)). The trial court…