Opinion ID: 2296715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Double Jeopardy Claim Barred

Text: Panuski also contends that his conviction violates his constitutional right not to be subject to double jeopardy. Rule 61(i)(4) provides: Any ground for relief that was formerly adjudicated, whether in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, . . . is thereafter barred, unless reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice. The Superior Court properly determined that this claim was procedurally barred because both the Superior Court and this Court had ruled on that claim in earlier proceedings. On direct appeal, this Court considered and rejected Panuski's double jeopardy argument. [14] Thus, this ground for relief is barred as formerly adjudicated. Moreover, Panuski has not shown that reconsideration is warranted in the interests of justice. To invoke this exception, a defendant must show that subsequent legal developments have revealed that the trial court lacked the authority to convict or punish him [15] or that there has been an important change in circumstances, in particular, the factual basis for issues previously posed. [16] Panuski has not demonstrated such a change in circumstances here. Accordingly the Superior Court properly denied Panuski's double jeopardy claim.