and provides no additional grounds for really so the question again is whether this is a federal constitutional protectionist double jeopardy case and tense says that it the state says it was not and the one of the issues that in which this issue turns is whether the greater charge was pending at the time t the fourth circuit court of appeals does not mean that all the charges are brought in a single indictment because you can waste a capital murder case with a defendant in that case initially and pleaded not guilty to other murder charges then claimed on appeal that his counsel was ineffective for inviting him to plead not guilty to murder charges when his sole goal was to avoid the death penalty and because he had pleaded not guilty to capital murder charges his theory was that she lost the opportunity to enter his own she could it his theory was that he could have just simply had an unrestricted right to come and plead guilty to a lesser offense and thereby in both double jeopardy  brought in the single indictment or not it was still a single prosecution case so the defense claimed in this case that these were multiple prosecutions but it's not because i'm here in case it doesn't matter whether these were bought separately and there's now the defendant found the transcript saying that the safe was given an opportunity to consolidate the charges and said that they didn't want to now the only time that would become important is because if this case had proceeded to a trial an actual trial a misdemeanor dui then the result of that trial would either been whittled which would barred the same time a felony a misdemeanor charges then had elected on a misdemeanor charge tried to defend it security a guilty verdict and that case or defend it would be able to say when state decided to try to  acquitted on a lesser charge but if he's convicted he's still been tried it more than once he would be able to be tried again in other words how the johnson says if you just plead guilty then the state has never had that opportunity to gain a conviction on the greater charge and they haven't had a chance to hone their presentation their case in martian resources more than one million words there's none of the overreaching that the double jeopardy protection is supposed to guard again so i have a question we know that the double jeopardy finals also protect citizens multiple punishments for the same ends so if except your argument where does that leave us on you know to being prosecuted for the greater charge the only takes the fact if the defendant is convicted of the greater charge after having pleaded guilty to the lesser charge in which case then he would be entitled to full sentencing credit as a matter of state law in other  that is what actually gets most of punishment is it just simply as a matter of state law where punishments fines jail time he served with then he'd be entitle to a credit and that's essentially all that protection means in the pending but even johnson goes farther in the state on a case out of iowa the trainer case which makes no mention that johnson can even extends where the greater charges even up out to be filed in other words the defendant can't come into court a day before  charges because he knows like for example from those that there's a grand jury proceeding they're bound to bring an indictment a greater charge then rushing to court see granted like to plead guilty to the lesser charge lesser offense he can do that and then claim double jeopardy because then he would be a stops defendant here did the day after pleading guilty to the misdemeanor without negotiating i mean he knew about the pending felony but didn't negotiate for his dismissal instead just decided that he thought that he had  the charges brought the lesser charge here was brought by uniform traffic citation in plains so the fed is trying to invoke a right to double jeopardy when and this claims any issue as to compulsory joiner because this was brought clarified a few very specific situations where this protection thousand are why but those are probably fact in terms of exceptions the state cites to some of those cases and selectively quote by the first scenario is where multiple charges are filed together and remain together in one prosecution that's you know how versus johnson supreme court case and that's this court's decision and people versus these courts have said if it's one prosecution it doesn't matter if the defendant pleads guilty to a single count you can't then try to argue that the remaining counts are a separate prosecution the court so that was always one case double jeopardy protections against model prosecution doesn't up by the situation because it's still one case the second scenario is where multiple charges are filed separately one of them has consolidated together into one prosecution and that has the same result even charges were combined and went to trial in one case that's all we're talking about you can the state relies on that extensively and it's not helpful to its position the third scenario which i think is most important for what the scenario we face here thirty exception is where charges are filed separately initially and the prosecution moves to combine them together and the defendant takes action to block that at times the defendant of jack's to the combination of the case that's what happened in jeffers versus united blocks if you the defendant block the prosecution from buying these cases how limited your double jeopardy peril you then cannot turn around and argue double jeopardy to dispose of the remaining case because you created your own there that is a very specific exception that chapter six points to the general rule that applies to this now none of those this case does not get any of those specific examples of exceptions to general general rule and mr staple objected to that combination this would be a very different case and the state would be absolutely correct to argue that the jeopardy would not apply as in jeopardy matters that's not what happened this is the exact opposite much effort  prosecution made a serious mistake here and mr to that mr staple has invoked his constitutional rights just as is proper now the state because of its mistake has lost the felony conviction but as the second district explained and people perceive printer it's not an appropriate outcome to strip mr stableman strip the defendant of this constitutional right to fix the prosecution's mistake a lot of that's that's inappropriate out it's true the for the prosecution messed up in this case but there are there are many decisions the prosecution has to make one presenting the state the state's case that if it makes mistakes on there will be serious consequences this is one of them brain met for example right away and said your honor he's pleading guilty to one of these non capital murders and that he says that his counsel should advise him to do that now whether that those charges were consolidated and tried together after that happens is not the point of the can't the point is he was charged in separate indictments and could have pleaded guilty under a separate charge and or what the intent was behind the prosecution there it was simply a matter of does it violate double jeopardy if a defendant comes in and he is guilty to a lesser included offense also decided in one nine hundred seventy seven that they didn't have the benefit of johnson which was decided in one thousand nine hundred four so joker's is not saying this is the extent of the double jeopardy clause you have to have attempts and one prosecution a single prosecution does not mean that they were filed together in the same indictment so this is a single prosecution case even though the charges were processed and so for those reasons