Opinion ID: 1447881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Sentence for Robbery

Text: Defendant was sentenced for robbery (count III) and robbery-felony-murder (count I). The robbery in each count was the robbery of Maxine Brown. Defendant's sentence on count III was stayed. (42) Defendant argues that his sentence on count III violates the double jeopardy clause of the federal Constitution. The United State Supreme Court has held that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against, among other things, multiple punishments for the same offense. ( North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) 395 U.S. 711, 717 [23 L.Ed.2d 656, 664, 89 S.Ct. 2072].) The high court has further held that a criminal defendant's sentence for both felony murder and the underlying felony violate[] the.... Double Jeopardy Clause[`s]... protection against `multiple punishments for the same offense' imposed in a single proceeding. [Citation.] ( Jones v. Thomas (1989) 491 U.S. 376, 381 [105 L.Ed.2d 322, 331, 109 S.Ct. 2522]; see Grady v. Corbin (1990) 495 U.S. 508, 516-517 [109 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561, 110 S.Ct. 2084].) [14] Because the focus of the double jeopardy inquiry in this context is on multiple punishment, an appropriate remedy is to vacate the defendant's sentence for the underlying felony. ( Jones v. Thomas, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 382 [105 L.Ed.2d at p. 331].) In this case, however, defendant's sentence on the robbery count was stayed. Since defendant will not serve his sentence for robbery, there is no need to vacate the sentence. He is protected against the harm of multiple punishment that the double jeopardy clause prohibits. ( Id. at p. 382, fn. 2 [105 L.Ed.2d at p. 331].)
The judgment is affirmed in its entirety.