Opinion ID: 2102287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Conviction on Multiple Counts for Delivery of Cocaine

Text: Seward lastly argues that he should have been convicted of only one count of delivery of cocaine because he only put one parcel of a substance into the stream of commerce and to convict him for three counts based on one act is in violation of the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy, the requirements of due process, and the principle of duplicity. This Court reviews Constitutional claims de novo to determine if the trial court committed an error of law. [40] We find that Seward is not being punished multiple times for one act, because he was convicted as a principal on one count and an accomplice on two counts, and each count of the indictment required proof of an additional fact that the other charge did not. The Constitutional double jeopardy clause prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. [41] The general test to determine whether separate counts of an indictment actually charge two offenses or only a single offense, is whether each count requires proof of a fact that the other does not. [42] The principle against multiplicity is based on the presumption that the legislature does not intend to punish the same offense under different statutes. [43] If it is clear, however, that the legislature intended to impose cumulative sentences, multiple punishments are not barred. [44] Seward argues that if his convictions are upheld, then a defendant will be permitted to be convicted more than once for the same conduct and under this theory a person who puts the drugs into commerce may be convicted of an indefinite number of deliveries which are only limited by the amount of times that the drugs then change hands. [45] Seward is incorrect. He was convicted on the first count as a principal based on his delivery of drugs to Collins. Seward's second and third convictions were based on him being an accomplice to Collins' delivery to the last witnessed transaction where a male and female each received a substance from Collins and each gave Collins money. According to the testimony, Seward stood on the street, kept watch, and appeared to be acting as a look out for the transactions. Therefore, each count required proof of an additional fact and each count involved a different recipient of cocaine. Seward was not punished for giving Collins the drugs and walking away, the evidence showed he actively participated in helping Collins facilitate the transactions by keeping a look out. Additionally his involvement as an accomplice was reenforced when Collins gave him the money after the transactions. Seward's arguments, therefore, are not persuasive.