8 results for 'cat:"Drug Offender" AND cat:"Double Jeopardy"'.
J. Wall finds a lower court properly convicted a defendant on charges of possession of meth and possession of a controlled substance missing a drug-tax stamp. The defendant argued that the charges violated double jeopardy. However, the state presented sufficient evidence in court that the charges are two separate offenses. Affirmed.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court, Judge: Wall, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 124607, Categories: drug Offender, double Jeopardy
J. Rickman finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's motions to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct the third indictment charging him with sale of a controlled substance and theft in obtaining a controlled substance. Double jeopardy did not bar defendant's prosecution on the third indictment. The trial court also correctly denied defendant's motion seeking access to communications between the state and an expert witness. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Rickman, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: A23A1661, Categories: drug Offender, double Jeopardy
J. Doyle finds that defendant's application for postconviction relief was properly dismissed following revocation of deferred judgment and resentencing on a forgery charge, as well as sentencing on his guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine. Resentencing did not violate double jeopardy since the sentences did not constitute punishment greater than intended by the state. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Doyle, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 22-1315, Categories: drug Offender, double Jeopardy, Forgery
J. Freudenberg finds the district court properly denied defendant's plea in bar. Defendant alleges that a trial on pending Uniform Controlled Substances Act charges would subject him to double jeopardy through a separate judgment of money forfeiture. Defendant failed to demonstrate he was punished by the forfeiture because he did not show he had an ownership interest in the forfeited money. The forfeiture sanction is civil, not criminal for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge: Freudenberg , Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: S-22-612, Categories: drug Offender, Forfeiture, double Jeopardy
J. Boomgaarden finds that the lower court properly sentenced defendant on drug convictions. Defendant claims that his two consecutive sentences violate double jeopardy rules, but the two sentences are derived from two separate offenses and two separate drug transactions. The rules of double jeopardy and the protections against them do not relate here and were not violated. Affirmed.
Court: Wyoming Supreme Court, Judge: Boomgaarden, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: S-23-0070, Categories: drug Offender, double Jeopardy
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Pritzker finds that the lower court improperly convicted defendant of one of three counts of drug possession in a superseding indictment because the mistrial did not dismiss the original indictment; the superseding indictment was a nullity; and defendant could be retried only on the two counts included in the original indictment. However, double jeopardy did not attach due to the mistrial. Reversed in part.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Pritzker, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 110159, Categories: Criminal Procedure, drug Offender, double Jeopardy
J. Ransom finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of possession of a controlled substance and unlawfully using a weapon while in possession of a controlled substance. These two convictions do not violate double jeopardy because the legislature specifically authorized multiple punishments for such conduct. Affirmed.
Court: Missouri Supreme Court, Judge: Ransom, Filed On: June 13, 2023, Case #: SC99871, Categories: drug Offender, Firearms, double Jeopardy
J. Vigil finds a lower court partially erred in convicting defendant of multiple counts of felony murder following an alleged burglary-murder at a drug den. While defendant is right that prosecutors should not have been able to “impose more than one homicide conviction for one death” and that his double jeopardy rights were therefore violated, defendant has not shown why evidence in the case should have been suppressed nor why the judge should have been forced to recuse himself. Reversed in part.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Vigil, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: S-1-SC-39142, Categories: drug Offender, Murder, double Jeopardy