Opinion ID: 853424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of Double Jeopardy

Text: Games argues that his sentencing for both murder and robbery violates double jeopardy under this Court's decision in Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999), which applied a same offense analysis. [1] (Appellant's Br. at 10.) This argument is not available to him. Games waived his right to challenge his sentence on double jeopardy grounds when he entered his plea agreement. In Lutes v. State, 272 Ind. 699, 704-05, 401 N.E.2d 671, 674 (1980), we held that a defendant with adequate counsel who enters a plea agreement to achieve an advantageous position must keep the bargain. Once the defendant bargains for a reduced charge, he cannot then challenge the sentence on double jeopardy grounds. See Griffin v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind. 1989). Games agreed to up to 118 years in prison in exchange for his life; clearly he bargained to his own benefit. As the Court of Appeals has observed, retaining a benefit while relieving oneself of the burden of the plea agreement would operate as a fraud upon the court. Spivey v. State, 553 N.E.2d 508, 509 (Ind.Ct.App. 1990) (citation omitted). Defendants who plead guilty to achieve favorable outcomes in the process of bargaining give up a plethora of substantive claims and procedural rights. Games has waived his claim of double jeopardy.