Opinion ID: 853128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Court's Holding Today

Text: I agree with the Court that none of Justice Sullivan's rules is breached by Guyton's two convictions. But I think that it takes some explanation as to why that is true, and what methodology is required to reach that conclusion. Guyton was convicted of murder and possession of a handgun without a license. The elements of murder are (1) intentional or knowing (2) killing of (3) a human being. The elements of carrying a handgun without a license are: (1) carrying a handgun in any vehicle or about the person (2) except in one's dwelling, on one's property or fixed place of business. [10] Clearly we have no statutory elements problem here. And it is obvious that the fourth (double enhancement) and fifth (conspiracy) of Justice Sullivan's rules do not apply to this situation. The remaining issue is whether the same facts support both convictions. It seems to me that the Court today handles this the way pre- Richardson appellate courts typically did by determining, under a de novo review of whatever is relevant, whether the facts of one crime are such that the same fact fits one of the Sullivan rules. Thus, just as under Richardson, we look to see if, under the statutes, charging instruments, evidence and arguments of counsel, it seems to us that the facts establishing one crime are the same as the facts establishing another (Rule 2) or establishing one or more elements of another (Rule 3). But we do this de novo, and without any effort to analyze what the jury might have considered. Whatever the jury's reasoning was, we find as a matter of law that the evidence did or did not support both convictions.