I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CP - 0 2 1 5 9 - CO A J O H N N Y L E W IS W A S H IN G T O N A /K /A J OHN NY L . W AS HI NG T ON AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 06/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J OH NN Y LEW I S W ASH I NG TON ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L I S A L
. BL OUNT NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : DEN I ED M OTI ON FOR POSTCO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 10/ 2015 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , C A R L T O N A N D JA M E S, JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. Jo h n n y L e w is W a s h in g to n a p p e a ls th e ju d g m e n t o f th e L o w n d e s C o u n ty C irc u it C our t , w hi ch deni ed hi s s econd mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef ( PC R ) on D ece m ber6, 2013. O n appea l , W as hi ngt on ar gues thatthe ci r cui tc our te rr ed by a cce pt i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea t o the char ge of

the arm ed r obbery of Roy T hom ps on be caus e i ta l l egedl y v i ol at ed W as hingt on ’s doubl e-

j eopar dy r i ght s . H e cl ai m s thathi s pr i orconvi ct i on f orthe capi t al
m u rde r of J.K
. W o o d s p roh ibit ed h is l ater ind ictm en t and co n v ict ion o f th e a rm ed rob b ery

### A L ownd es C ountyg randjuryind icted W ashin gto n fo r capital murder in19 77 . A 1 

### dif fe re nt Lownde s Count

y grand jur

y late r indic te d Was hington for thear me d robbe ry of Thomps on, a s we llas theaggravate d as sa ult of El ouis e Cl ar

k, in 1983. The reco rd refle ct s that

Was hington ple d guilty to thecharge s of ar me d robbe ry 2 

### (Thom pson) and a ggravat ed a ss ault ( Clark)
. 2 of T hom ps on. I n af

f i r m i ng the tr i al court ’ s di s m i s sal in partand deni al i n partof 1 W as hi ngt on’ s f

i r s tm ot i on f

orPC R on a r el at ed i s s ue, w e hel d thatdoubl e j eopar dy pos ed
n o b a rt o W a s h i n g t o n ’ s s u b s e q u e n tp r o s e c u t i o n f o ra g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l ta g a i n s ta th i r d v i c t i m, E lo u is e C la rk
. W

a sh in g to n v . S ta te , 154 So. 3d 34, 37- 38 ( ¶¶3- 5) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012) ( W a sh ing ton II

)
. U pon r evi ew , w e f

i nd thatW as hi ngt on f

ai l ed t o r ai s e a thr es hol d s how i ng
o f a d o u b le-

jeo p a rd y v io latio n d u e to h is c o n v ictio n fo r th e c a p ital m u rd e r o f W o o d s a n d h is
s u b s e q u e n tc o n v i c t i o n f o rth e a r me d r o b b e ry o f Th o mp s o n . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i r m. FACTS ¶2. T his case i nv olves W ashi ng t on ’s pri or co nv i ct i on for the capit al m u rder of W oo ds,
as w el l as hi s subs equentconvi ct i on fort he arm ed r obbery of a s econd vi ct i m , T hom ps on. 2 T h e p roc ed u ral hist o ry sh o w s tha t th e M issi ssipp i Su p rem e C o u rt a ffirm ed W ash ing ton ’s convi ct i on of

the capi t al murde rof

W oods on di r ectappea l i n W a sh in g to n v . S ta te , 361 So. 2 d 6 1 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ) ( W

as hi ngt on I

)
. W as hi ngt on f

i l ed tw o PC R mot i ons i n J ul y 2011, one
c h a llen g in g h is c o n v ictio n fo r th e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt o f C lar k , a n d th e o th e r c h a llen g in g h is
a rm e d -r o b b e ry c o n v ic tio n , w h ic h th e tr ia l c o u rtd is m is s e d in p a rta n d d e n ie d in p a rt . ¶3. T hi s C our taff

i rm ed t he t ri al co urt ’s j udgm enti n W a sh ing ton II, 154 So. 3d at 41 ( ¶ 1 8 ) , wh e r e i n W a s h i n g t o n a r g u e d th a tth e tr i a l c o u r te rr e d i n ( 1 ) t r e a t i n g h i s s e p a r a t e P CR
m o tio n s, c h a llen g in g th e a rm e d -ro b b e ry c o n v ictio n a n d s e n ten c e a n d th e a g g ra v a ted -a ss a u lt

### 3

co n v ict i on and sent ence, as on e m oti on , and (2) fi nd i ng his cl ai m s t i m e-barred. In W a sh ing ton II, th i s Co u r ta d o p t e d th e o p e r a t i v e f a c t s o f th i s c a s e a s s e tf

o r th b y th e s u p r e me
courti n W

as hi ngt on I : W oods Q ui ck Pi ck, a C ol um bu s, M i s s i s s i ppi conveni ence s t or e, w as r obbed on the ni ghtof

M ar ch 26, 1977, by tw o men arm ed w i th s hot guns and w ear i ng s t ocki ng m as ks
. D ur i ng the r obbery, one of the ba ndi t s , l at eri dent i f i ed as J ohnny L ew i s W as hi ngt on, atcl os e r ange s hotJ
. K
. W oods , the pr opr i et orof th e sto re , in t h e sto m a c h w ith a lo n g -b a rre l sh o tg u n lo a d e d w ith b u c k sh o t. W o o d s d ied a b o u t fiv e h o u rs la ter in a C o lu m b u s h o sp ital. B ookerT
. C ol e, J r . t es t i f i ed t hat betw een 7: 30 and 8: 00 p. m . on M ar ch 26, 19 77 , John ny W ashi ng t on con t act ed h i m and t old hi m t o co m e by his ho use beca us e “he had s om ethi ng up. ” S om et i m e l at er , w hen C ol e arr i ved at W as hi ngt on' s hous e, the def endantt ol d C ol e thatthey w er e goi ng to rob a Q u ick P ick. W ash ing ton p rov ided C o le w ith a st o ck ing m ask an d a sa w ed -off s hot gun, and they t ook up t heirst at i on acr os s the s tr eetf r om W oods Q ui ck Pi ck. A f t erass embl i ng and l oadi ng thei rs hot guns , w hen the coa s tw as cl ear they ran across t h e streetand i nto W oo ds Q uick Pick st ore. J. K
. W oo ds, ow nerof the s t or e, Roy T hom ps on, a n e m pl oyee, a nd a f em al e em ployee , E l oui s e C l ark, w er e i n the s t or e. C ol e and W as hi ngt on poi nt ed thei rs hot guns atW oods an d T hom ps on, and t ol d them t o open the ca s h r egi s t er s and “g i ve us the money. ” Thom ps on began t o putthe money f r om the f

i r s tcas h r egi s t eri nt o a br ow n papers ack. C ol e, the s m al l erand youngerof t he tw o robbe r s , found a bank s ack of m oney i n a cabi netdr aw er , and he f l ed w i th thats ack. W as hi ngt on, i n the meant i m e, or der ed W oods t o putthe mon ey fr om the s econd c as h r egi s t eri nt o the s ame papers ack thatT hom ps on had putthe m oney fr om the f

i r s tcas h r egi s t er . W oods m i s under s t ood and r eac hed f or anotherpapers ack, w her eupon, acc or di ng t o the t es t i m ony of T hom ps on, W as hi ngt on hi tW oods overthe hea d w i th the gun bar r el “j us tas har d as he coul d. ” I n f

al l i ng , W oods knocked Thom ps on' s s ack of m oney of

f on the f l oor . T ho mps on t ol d W a s hi ng t on tha tW oo ds ha d b e e n d r i nk i ng a nd t o l et hi m s ack the money. W as hi ngt on t ol d T hom ps on nott o m ove and pl ace d the s hot gun about8 i nches f r om T hom ps on' s head. W oods w enta head and pi cked u p th e s a c k a n d s a c k e d th e m o n e y fr o m th e s e c o n d c a s h re g is te r. A s W oo ds h anded W as hi ngt on the s ack i n one hand, he r eac hed f orthe gun barr el w i th the other , butmi s s ed, a nd W as hi ngt on keptthe gun on W oods as

### 4

h e, W ash ing ton , ba ck ed tow ard the d o o r. W o o d s m o v ed v ery slow ly tow ard W a s h i n g t o n . J u s tb e f

o r e h e l e f

t , W a s h i n g t o n f

i r e d h i s s h o t g u n i n t o W o o d s 's s t om ach. W as hi ngt on r el oaded hi s s hot gun a nd l ef t . T hom ps on t es t i f

i ed that W as hi ngt on and W oods w er e about10 fe etapartw hen W as hi ngt on f i r ed, and thatW as hi ngt on coul d very eas i l y have m ade hi s exi tw i th hi s s ack of m oney w i tho ut s ho oti ng W oo ds. C ol e t es t i f

i ed thathe w as a s hor tdi s t ance aw ay w hen he he ar d the s hot , and W ashi ng t on cam e runn i ng o ut of the st ore t el l i ng C ole that he h ad sho tW oo ds. C ol e t es t i f

i ed thatl at erthatni ght , about12: 30 or1: 00 a. m . , they gott ogether a n d d i v i d e d th e mo n e y ( a b o u t$ 6 0 0 ) b e twe e n th e m. W as hi ngt on' s def

ens e w as thathe w as ata party, w as notatW oods Q ui ck Pi ck, di d notcomm i tthe r obbery, nordi d he ki l l W oods
. Sever al peopl e atthe party t es t i f

i ed thatW as hi ngt on di d notarr i ve ther e unt i l ar ound m i dni ght , and n o wi tn e s s t e s t i f

i e d th a tW a s h i n g t o n wa s th e r e f r o m 1 0 : 0 0 t o 1 0 : 3 0 p . m. B en H od o o f Ethel svi l l e, A l abam a, w as vis i t i ng h i s grand m otherin C olum bu s, M is s is s ip p i, o n th e n ig h t o f t h e ro b b e ry . H e te s tif ie d th a t a ro u n d 1 0 :0 0 p .m ., a s h e wa s g o i n g d o wn t o L e e ' s Re s t a u r a n tt o g e ts o me th i n g t o e a t , h e s a w a m an i n an al l ey nextt o W oods Q ui ck P i ck w i t h a l ong gun and a s ack of m oney. H odo t es t i f

i ed thathe a nd the m an w i th the l ong gun l ooked ateac h o th e r a b o u t 1 0 s e c o n d s a n d th a t th e y w e re c lo se to g e th e r. H e p o sitiv e ly i dent i f i ed W as hi ngt on as the one he s aw i n the al l ey w i t h t he s ack of m oney a n d lo n g g u n . Id
. at35- 36 ( ¶2) ( quot i ng W as hi ngt on I, 3 6 1 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 -6 4 ). ¶4. T hi s C our tthen s etf or th t he pr ocedur al pos tur e of W as hi ngt on’ s 1977 i ndi ctm ent and
su b se q u e n t 1 9 8 3 in d ictm e n ts: O n M ay 10, 1977, a Low ndes C ounty gr and j ury i ndi ct ed W as hi ngt on f orthe capi t al m ur derof

J
. K
. W oods
. . . . A j ury s ubs equent l y convi ct ed W as hi ngt on o f c a p i t a l mu r d e r , a n d h e wa s s e n t e n c e d t o d e a th
. Th e M i s s i s s i p p i S u p r e me C our taf f i r m ed W as hi ngt on' s convi ct i on and s ent ence on J ul y 12, 1978
. See W a sh in g to n v . S ta te , 3 6 1 S o . 2 d 6 1 ( M iss . 1 9 7 8 ). O n F e b ru a ry 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 , in re sp o n se to th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e F ifth C irc u it' s m a n d a te i n W as hi ngt on v. W

atki ns , 655 F. 2d 1346 (5t h C i r . U ni tA Sept
. 1981) , the ci r cui tcourtr es ent ence d W as hi ngt on t o l i f e i mpr i s onm enti n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i pp i D e pa r t mentO f Cor r e c t i on s ( M D O C) f orthe c r i me of

c api t al m u rde r.

### 5

O n thats ame day, F ebruary 25, 1983, a L ow ndes C ounty gra nd j ury i ndi ct ed W as hi ngt on f

orthe a r med r ob be ry o f Roy Thomps on . . . . W a s hi ng t on pl ed gui l ty t o arm ed r obbery and r ece i ved a f or ty- yearconse cut i ve s ent ence i n the cus t ody of

t he M D O C
. W as hi ngt on w as al s o i ndi ct ed f orthe aggr avat ed as s aul tof E l oui s e C l ark i n L ow ndes C ounty caus e number7926. 5 W as hi ngt on pl ed gui l ty t o the cr i m e of a ggr avat ed as s aul t , a nd the ci r cui tcourts ent ence d h i m t o a c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e o f twe n ty y e a r s i n th e c u s t o d y o f th e M DOC. O n Ju ly 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 , W ash ing ton fi led a P C R m o tion [( fi rstP C R m o ti o n )] chal l engi ng hi s [ aggr avat ed as s aul t ] convi ct i on. T hen, on J ul y 29, 2011, W a sh in g to n filed a P C R m o tio n [(se c o n d P C R m o tio n )] ch a llen g in g h is [ arm ed r obbery] convi ct i on . . . . O n A ugus t26, 2011, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed a n o rd e r d is m is s in g in p a rta n d d e n y in g in p a rtW a s h in g to n ' s c la im s [.] W a sh ing ton II, 154 So. 3d at37- 38 ( ¶¶3- 5) ( f ootnot es om i t t ed)
. T hi s C our taf f i r m ed the tr i al
court ’ s or der , f

i ndi ng “ no m er i tt o W as hi ngt on' s cl ai m thata vi ol at i on of hi s doubl e-

j eopar dy
r i ght s occurr ed. ” I

d. at 41 (¶1 8 ). ¶5. W i th r es pect t o t he i s s ue now bef or e thi s C our ti n the pr es entappea l , W as hi ngt on filed y e t an o th e r P C R m o tio n in Ju n e 2 0 1 3 , as k in g th e trial c o u rt to v a c a te a n d s e t as id e h is convi ct i on and s ent ence f orthe arm ed r obbery of T hom ps on. T he tr i al courtf ound the mot i on t o b e w i tho utmer i t , a nd de ni e d W a s hi ng t on ’ s PCR mot i on on D e c e mber6, 20 13. W as hi ngt on now a ppeal s , c l ai m i ng thatthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n a cce pt i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea t o the charge o f arm ed robb ery becau se i tviol at ed W ashi ng t on ’s do ub l e-j eop ardy ri gh t s. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 6
. W h e n re v iew in g a tria l c o u rt ' s d e n ia l o r d ism iss a l o f a P C R m o tio n , w e w ill o n ly di s turb the tr i al court ' s f actual f i ndi ngs i f

they ar e cl ear l y e rr oneous ; how ever , w e r evi ew the tr ia l c o u rt ' s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s u n d e r a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . H u g h e s v . S ta te , 106 So. 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 8 (¶4 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 2 ). DI S CU S S I ON

### In Willie v. State , 738 So. 2d217 , 21 9 (¶1 0) (M iss. 19 99 ), the supreme co urt h eld 3 

### that “ a pl ea

of gui lt y to a c harge doe s not

waive a cl aim t hat —judge d on it s f

ac e—the c harge is on e wh ich th e State mayno t con stitutio nallypro secute.” 6 ¶7. W as hi ngt on ar gues that hi s r el at ed pr i or convi ct i on f or the capi t al m ur der of W oods and hi s s ubs equenti ndi ctm enta nd c onvi ct i on f ora r m ed r obbery agai nstT hom ps on 3
cons t i tut e doubl e j eopar dy. W as hi ngt on cl ai m s thathe w as puni s hed mul t i pl e t i m es f orthe
s ame of f ens e— arm ed r obbery. H ow ever , the i nd i ct m ent s char ged s epar at e and di s t i nct of f ens es , and i nvol ved di f

f er entvi ct i m s . W as hi ngt on w as convi ct ed of capit al m ur derf

or
r obbi ng and then ki l l i ng W oods , w hi l e hi s subs equentarm ed- r obbery convi ct i on r es ul t ed f r om robb i ng T hom ps on. A ccor di ngl y, the convi ct i ons eac h r equi r ed pr oof of di f f er ent el em ents , and thu s const i tuted di ff erentoff enses. ¶8. A s expl ai ned by t he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our ti n Ke lly v . S ta te , 80 So. 3d 802, 805 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . 2012) , “ [ b] oth the U ni t ed St at es a nd M i s s i s s i ppi Const i tuti on s provi de pr ot ect i ons agai ns tdoubl e j eopar dy, pr ovi di ng i n the ca s e of the U
. S. C on st i tut i on thatno ‘pe rson sh all b e su b

ject for th e s a m e o ffen se to b e tw ice p u t i n jeop ard y o f l if e o r l im b
. ’” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V
. See al s o M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 2 . T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e D o u b le J eopar dy Cl aus e appl i es , appel l at e court s appl y the B l ockb urger te s t. B l ockbur gerv. U ni t ed S ta te s , 2 8 4 U .S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 (1 9 3 2 ); se e a lso Fo re m a n v . S ta te , 51 S o. 3d 95 7, 96 1 (¶10 ) ( M i ss. 2011)
. I n B l ockburger , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d that“w her e the s ame actor tr ans act i on c ons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of tw o di s t i ncts t atut ory pr ovi s i ons , the t es tt o be appl i ed t o det erm i ne w hetherther e ar e tw o of f ens es oronl y one, i s w hethereac h pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of a f actw hi ch the other do es no t . ” B l ockbur ger , 28 4 U
. S
. at30 4. C ou rt s m ust

### 7

“d eterm ine w h ethe r ea ch o ffen se co n tai n s a n e lem en t no t prese n t i n the o ther; i f no t, they are l abel ed the s ame of

f ens e, f ordoubl e-

j eopar dy purpos es . ” Kel l y, 8 0 S o . 3 d at 80 5 (¶1 1 ). ¶9. W ashi ng t on ’s i nd i ct m ent f or capi t al m urder s t at es, i n p art , as f oll ow s: Jo h n n y L e w is W a sh in g to n [,] la te o f th e C o u n ty a fo re sa id , o n o r a b o u t th e 2 6 th day of M ar ch i n the yea rof

ourL or d, 1977, di d then and ther e w i l ful l y, u n law full y , felon iou sly a n d o f h is m ali ce afo retho u g h t kil l and m u rde r a h u m a n b eing , J. K
. W o o d s, w ith o u t auth o ri ty at law an d n o t i n n ec essa ry self-de fen se w h il e h e, th e sa id Jo h n n y L ew is W ash ing ton [, ] w as th en an d there eng aged i n the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e of

arm ed r obbery i n vi ol at i on of s e c tio n 9 7 -3 -1 9 (2 )( [e ]) o f t h e M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d [.] ¶10. W as hi ngt on cl ai m s t hatt he i ndi ctm ent on l y char ges hi m w i th t he arm ed r obbery of W oods , and thatthe gr and j ury neveri ndi ct ed hi m f orthe arm ed r obb ery of T hom ps on. H ow ever , the re cor d r ef l ect s thats ubs equentt o hi s convi ct i on f orcapi t al m ur der , another gr and j ury i ndeed i ndi ct ed W as hi ngt on f orthe arm ed r obbery of

T hom ps on. T he i ndi ctm ent char ges thatW as hi ngt on: [ D ] i d unl aw f

ul l y, w i l f ul l y, and f

el oni ous l y, t ake, s t eal and carry aw ay f r om the p re se n c e o f R o y T h o m p so n , the p e rso n a l p ro p e rty o f J.K . W o o d s, to -w it: m oney, agai ns tthe w i l l of the s ai d R oy T hom ps on, by put t i ng the s ai d R oy T h o m p so n in fea r of im m ed iat e inju ry to h is pe rson b y th e ex h ibit ion o f a deadl y w eapon, t o- w i t : a shot gun, w i th the i nt entt o perm anent l y depr i ve the o w n er the reo f. ¶11. W e agr ee w i th the St at e’ s obs ervat i on that W as hi ngt on i s under t he m i sconce pt i on that he can no tb e ch arged w i th robbing T ho m pson i f the p roperty taken b el on ged t o W oo ds. I n T o w n e r v . S ta te , 812 So. 2d 1109, 1113 ( ¶18) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002), t hi s C our thel d that

“ it i s n o t re lev a n t w h e th e r th e p o ten tial v ictim o f a ro b b e ry h a s o w n e rsh ip o f th e p ro p e rty take n . ” In tha t ca se, th e ap p ell an t, T o w n er, w as co n v ict ed of tw o co u n ts o f arm ed rob b ery fo r ro b b in g tw o p e o p le o f o n e item o f p ro p e rty a t g u n p o in t w h ile th e p ro p e rty w a s w ith in

### 8

th e irp ro x im ity a n d c o n tr o l. Id
. T hi s Courta ddr es s ed the f ol l ow i ng que s t i on: “w hen the
s ame pr operty i s by thr eatorvi ol ence t aken f r om the pr es ence and cont r ol of tw o di f f er ent peopl e, ar e ther e tw o robbe r i es or onl y one?” Id
. at1114 ( ¶20)
. T hi s C our tacknow l edged that a “ relati v e ly rec en t r estatem en t of B l ockbur gerw as thatw hen ‘ eac h s epar at e cha r ged
cr i m e r equi r es pr oof

o f a factt hatthe otherdoes not , the B l ockb urger t es ti s s at i s f i ed, notw i ths t andi ng a s ubs t ant i al over l ap i n the pr oof of f er ed t o es t abl i s h the cr i m es . ’ ” Id
. at ( ¶22) ( quot i ng I

annel l iv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 420 U
. S. 770, 785 n. 17 ( 1975) )
. A s a r es ul t , the Tow nercour tfound “no tr adi t i onal doubl e j eopar dy pr obl em as t o T ow ner ' s pr os ecut i ons
s i nce ther e w oul d be a di f f er entel ementi n eac h of f ens e— the name of

the vi ct i m . ” I

d. ¶1 2
. R e g a rd in g W ash ing ton ’s prior c lai m that a v iolati o n o f his d o u b le-j eo p ard y rig h ts
occurr ed, thi s C our tpr evi ous l y hel d i n W a sh ing ton II th a t: W e . . . fin d n o m e rit to W a s h in g to n ' s c laim th a t a v io latio n o f h is d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y r i g h t s oc c u r r e d
. I n s u p p o r to f h i s d o u b l e -

j e o p a r d y c l a i m, W as hi ngt on ar gues thathe w as puni s hed mul t i pl e t i m es f orthe s ame of

f ens e. H ow ever , the r ecor d be l i es hi s c l ai m . W as hi ngt on' s i ndi ctm entforcapi t al mur de ra l l e ge d tha the ki l l e d W oo ds w hi l e e ng a ge d i n the c omm i s s i on of arm ed r obbery. A j ury s ubs equent l y convi ct ed W as hi ngt on of capi t al m ur der an d i m p o sed th e d ea th pe n alty . . . . O n [Fe b rua ry 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 ] , the c ir cu itco u rt r es ent ence d W as hi ngt on t o l i f e i m pr i s onm entf

orhi s capi t al
- m ur der convi ct i on. A l s o on February 25, 1983, the St at e i ndi ct ed W as hi ngt on s epar at el y f

orthe aggr avat ed as s aul tof C l ark and f

orthe arm ed r obbery of T hom ps on. A s not ed above , W as hi ngt on' s i ndi ctm entf orcapi t al murde rpr ovi ded thathe mur de r e d W oo ds w hi l e [ ] e ng a ge d i n the c omm i s s i on of a r med r obbe r y. T o d a y ' s c a se , h o w e v e r, in v o lv e s W a sh in g to n ' s c rim e o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt agai ns tC l ark. T hi s C our tha s he l d thats epar at e of f ens es , though comm i t t ed undera comm on nucl eus of oper at i ve f

act , do notpr es enta l egal i m pedi m ent t o mul t i pl e pr os ecut i ons unde rthe doubl e j eopar dy c l aus e of both the f

eder al a n d th e sta te c o n stitu tio n s.• T h e re fo re , W a sh in g to n fa iled to ra ise a th re sh o ld sh o w in g o f a d o u b le je o p a rd y v io latio n sin c e th e o ffe n se s a t issu e c o n stitu te s epar at e of

f ens e, and s i nce the St at e di d nots epar at el y char ge W as hi ngt on

### 9

w ith th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y o ffe n se to th e c a p ital-m u rd e r c h a rg e . T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. W a sh ing ton II, 1 5 4 S o . 3 d at 41 (¶ ¶1 8 -19 ) (i n terna l cit ati o n s a n d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶ 1 3
. In th e p re se n t a p p e a l, w e a g a in f in d th a t W a s h in g to n fa iled to ra ise a th re sh o ld
s how i ng of doubl e j eopar dy. A s i n T ow ner, W as hi ngt on’ s c onvi ct i ons f orthe capi t al m ur der of W oods and the arm ed r obbery of T hom ps on cr eat e no doubl e- j eopar dy pr obl e m si nce e ach
conv i c t i on r e qu i r ed pr oof of di f f er entel ement s , and ea ch had di f f er entvi ct i m s . Fur therm or e, the c ap it al-m u rde r con v ict ion requ ir ed pro o f of an ad d it ion al el em en t th at th e a rm ed -rob b ery
c o n v ic tio n d id n o t— th e k illin g o f W o o d s . Se e Tow ner , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d at 11 1 4 (¶2 1 ). “M i s s i s s i ppi has l ong r ecogni zed thats epar at e of f ens es , though c om m i t t ed undera comm on nucl eus of

oper at i ve f

act , [ do] notpr es enta l egal i m pedi m entt o m ul t i pl e pr os ecut i ons under the [ D ] oubl e [ J ] eopar dy [ C ] l aus e of both the f

eder al a nd the s t at e cons t i tut i ons . ” Henl ey v . S ta te , 7 49 S o. 2 d 246, 249 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 1999)
. W e thus f i nd no err ori n the tr i al
co u rt ’s de n ial o f W ash ing ton ’s P C R m o ti o n . A cc o rdin g ly, w e affirm the tri al co u rt ’s j udgm entdenyi ng W as hi ngt on’ s PC R m ot i on. ¶ 1 4
. THE JUDGM ENT O F THE C I RCUI T C OURT OF LOW NDES CO UNTY DENYI NG THE M OTI ON FOR POST- CO NV I CT I O N R ELI EF I S AFFI RM ED . ALL COS TS OF THI S AP P EA L A RE AS S ES S ED TO L OW NDE S COUNT Y. LE E, C . J. , I R V I N G A N D G R I FFIS, P. JJ . , B A R N E S, I SH EE , R O BE R TS, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.