15 results for 'cat:"Sentencing" AND cat:"Double Jeopardy"'.
J. Mead finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant following a jury trial for “hunting a deer after having killed one,” as well as unlawful possession of wild animals. On appeal, he fails to show that the charge for possession of wild animals was barred under double jeopardy principles. Additionally, the matter is remanded for reconsideration of a stay order. The lower court had “the authority to order the original stay” and should decide whether to reinstate it. Affirmed.
Court: Maine Supreme Court, Judge: Mead, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 2024ME33, Categories: Criminal Procedure, sentencing, double Jeopardy
Per curiam, the appeals court finds the lower court improperly convicted defendant for grand theft of a firearm, but properly convicted him for several counts of burglary and grand theft. Defendant argues his double jeopardy rights were violated in light of a separate conviction for motor vehicle grand theft; the court agrees with defendant as to the double jeopardy claim, so his grand theft of a firearm conviction shall be vacated. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 6D23-653, Categories: sentencing, Theft, double Jeopardy
J. Thomson finds defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated by aggravated battery and armed robbery convictions. The state used evidence of the same force to prove each conviction, which improperly allowed defendant to be punished twice for the same conduct. Although the robbery offense began when defendant pointed a gun at the owner of the restaurant, it was not completed until he stole money from a cash register after he shot the owner - the use of force implicated by the state's battery offense - and the overlapping nature of the offenses alongside the single use of force prevents both convictions. Therefore, the aggravated battery conviction will be vacated since it carries the shorter sentence. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Thomson, Filed On: January 16, 2024, Case #: S-1-SC-39355, Categories: Robbery, sentencing, double Jeopardy
[Modified.] J. Bowen corrects a few typos with no change in judgment. The trial court was not vindictive in a full resentencing hearing that ended with a four-month-longer sentence than was originally imposed on domestic violence, assault and other convictions. Unauthorized terms were withdrawn, while the extra four months was permissible upon resentencing, and the trial court gave all arguments thoughtful consideration. Nonetheless, the sentence on one of the counts should run concurrently instead of consecutively, so the aggregate sentence is reduced by one year. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Bowen, Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: A166756, Categories: sentencing, double Jeopardy, Domestic Violence
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. Cole finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant for second-degree assault but improperly sentenced him. The lower court did not err in admitting a certain jail-surveillance video. Defendant does not contend that the video was altered, and a detention officer testified that the video admitted at trial "was the same as the video he watched the day after the incident." However, the lower court improperly sentenced defendant a second time "with a more severe sentence," in violation of double jeopardy principles. Affirmed in part.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Cole, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: CR-21-0410, Categories: sentencing, Assault, double Jeopardy
J. Wray finds that defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated when he was convicted of both aggravated assault and false imprisonment. The state used the same evidence to convict him of both crimes, which were based on a single course of conduct that involved holding the victims at gunpoint to wait for another individual to return to the home. Therefore, three of defendant's convictions must be vacated and the case must be remanded for resentencing. Reversed in part.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Wray, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-40597, Categories: sentencing, Assault, double Jeopardy
J. Bowen finds that the trial court was not vindictive in a full resentencing hearing that ended with a four-month-longer sentence than was originally imposed on domestic violence, assault and other convictions. Unauthorized terms were withdrawn, while the extra four months was permissible upon resentencing, and the trial court gave all arguments thoughtful consideration. Nonetheless, the sentence on one of the counts should run concurrently instead of consecutively, so the aggregate sentence is reduced by one year. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Bowen, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: A166756, Categories: sentencing, double Jeopardy, Domestic Violence
J. Valihura finds that resentencing did not violate defendant's double jeopardy rights because he had not served time for his conviction for failing to comply with bond, and he lacked a legitimate expectation of finality for the original sentencing package, as defendant understood that the state intended him to serve five years at level five supervision.
Court: Delaware Supreme Court, Judge: Valihura, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: 386, 2022, Categories: sentencing, double Jeopardy
J. Kautz finds that the lower court properly denied defendant's motion to correct a sentence stemming from his two vehicular homicide convictions. Defendant was ordered to serve his sentences for both counts consecutively, and defendant claims multiple sentences for the same car accident violated his double jeopardy rights. He already raised this issues during a direct appeal in 2015, leaving this motion barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Affirmed.
Court: Wyoming Supreme Court, Judge: Kautz, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: S-23-0091, Categories: sentencing, double Jeopardy, Vehicular Homicide
J. Nichols finds that the lower courts properly sentenced defendants for driving under the influence in two separate cases that Pennsylvania now raises for appeal, arguing both sentences failed to properly take into account prior offenses. New sentences in these cases would violate the constitutional protections guaranteed to defendants by the double jeopardy clause. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Nichols, Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: J-S13004-23, Categories: sentencing, double Jeopardy, Dui
J. Klingensmith finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for sexual battery, though it improperly sentenced him. The judge’s mistakenly pronouncing sentence in terms of “months” rather than "years" does not allow defendant opportunity to take advantage of the verbal misstep. The mistake was quickly rectified, and double jeopardy does not prevent the trial court from correcting the error. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Klingensmith, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 4D21-3229, Categories: sentencing, Sex Offender, double Jeopardy
[Consolidated.] J. Hodges finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of child molestation and correctly sentenced defendant. After initially sentencing defendant as a recidivist to serve 40 years in prison, the trial court resentenced defendant due to an error which said the sentence was the result of both a negotiated guilty plea and a jury trial. The new sentence merged all three of defendant's convictions related to touching the victim's vagina into one conviction and resentenced him as a recidivist. The resentencing did not violate double jeopardy protections. Defendant failed to show that his trial counsel performed deficiently. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Hodges, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: A23A0035, Categories: sentencing, Sex Offender, double Jeopardy
[Consolidated.] J. McNeill finds that defendant was properly convicted of four counts of first-degree bail jumping and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. Defendant contends that multiple bail jumping convictions based on a single missed court appearance violated double jeopardy, but the unit of prosecution is each charge for which a defendant fails to appear, not the number of missed court appearances. Affirmed.
Court: Kentucky Court Of Appeals, Judge: McNeill, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 2021-CA-0490-MR, Categories: sentencing, double Jeopardy, Bail
J. Wendlandt finds defendant's altered sentence must be vacated and his resentence, which was a reduced number of years in prison on indecent assault and battery convictions on a person with an intellectual disability, be reinstated. Although his resentence was illegally lower than the required minimum of years required for his convictions, the altered sentence violated double jeopardy principles. Reversed.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Wendlandt, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: SJC-13294, Categories: sentencing, Assault, double Jeopardy