Opinion ID: 1658324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the court err in failing to dismiss this cause on a plea of double jeopardy?

Text: Lightsey's contention in this assignment is that he was placed in double jeopardy when tried for burglary after having had the charge of burglary used to revoke his parole on the embezzlement charge. This Court disagrees that this position constitutes double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb... . Likewise, Article III, § 22 of the Mississippi Constitution provides, No person's life or liberty shall be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense; but there must be an actual acquittal or conviction on the merits to bar another prosecution. Thus, for a plea of former jeopardy to avail it must be shown that a defendant was actually acquitted or convicted in a former trial on the merits of the crime for which he is again sought to be convicted. Wallace v. State, 466 So.2d 900 (Miss. 1985); Mallette v. State, 349 So.2d 546 (Miss. 1977); See also, Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 93 S.Ct. 1066, 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1973). There has been no showing in the instant case that Lightsey was ever convicted of this burglary in a former trial. He was simply found to have violated the terms of what was thought to be the probation resulting from his embezzlement conviction. While it is true that Lightsey was never actually on probation, it does not follow that the mistaken probation revocation may now be looked upon as a trial on the merits of the burglary charge. Lightsey was unlawfully imprisoned for embezzlement, and he used habeas corpus proceedings to gain his liberty. He was not tried twice on the burglary charge.