Whether a state court can avoid the federal constitutional issues raised by a vindictive-prosecution claim

QUESTION PRESENTED After petitioner Justin Wolfe obtained federal habeas relief because of “abhorrent” prosecutorial misconduct, the Commonwealth of Virginia vindictively brought six new charges with more severe penalties against Wolfe. Instead of requiring the Commonwealth to justify the new charges, the trial court rejected the vindictive prosecution claim on grounds that are manifestly wrong. With no chance of a fair trial, Wolfe entered a plea and then, on appeal, argued that the trial court had no authority to convict or sentence him because of the vindictive prosecution. Instead of addressing the federal constitutional issues raised by that claim, the Virginia courts concluded that Wolfe’s guilty plea waived his right to appeal. This Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and directed the Virginia courts to consider Class v. United States, 138 8. Ct. 798 (2018). On remand, the Virginia courts recognized that Wolfe’s guilty plea does not bar his appeal. But they invented another reason not to address Wolfe’s vindictive prosecution claim, holding that Wolfe forfeited his appellate rights because he purportedly did not preserve an argument in favor of his position. As a result, nearly 20 years after his original indictment, Wolfe remains in prison without ever having received a fair trial. The question presented is: Whether a state court can avoid the federal constitutional issues raised by a_ vindictive prosecution claim, which challenges the State’s constitutional authority to convict and impose sentence, by applying a forfeiture rule that itself does not comply with constitutional due process.