Due process concerns do not bar retrial of a strike allegation that has been overturned on appeal due to insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal reversed the finding that the defendant had suffered a prior juvenile adjudication that constituted a serious or violent felony, on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the adjudication resulted in a declaration of wardship. Holding that retrial of the allegation was permissible, the Supreme Court first noted that under Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, retrial of a prior conviction does not violate the double jeopardy clause. The court further rejected the defendant’s argument that retrial would deprive him of due process, citing United States Supreme Court precedent holding that the due process clause may not be used to extend double jeopardy protections in situations where double jeopardy would not otherwise extend. The court also held that the law of the case doctrine neither barred retrial nor prevented the prosecution from presenting additional evidence, since that doctrine applies only to legal determinations, not to facts. Finally, the court rejected the defendant’s res judicata and collateral estoppel arguments, and found nothing in the statutes showing a legislative intent to preclude retrial.