Document: 467 U.S. 493 104 S.Ct. 2536 81 L.Ed.2d 425 OHIO, Petitioner,v.Kenneth M. JOHNSON. No. 83-904. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 25, 1984. Decided June 11, Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, Syllabus As a result killing and theft property, respondent was indicted by an Ohio grand jury on one count each murder, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated robbery, theft. At his arraignment, trial court, over State's objection, accepted respondent's guilty pleas to manslaughter theft, then granted motion dismiss remaining charges, which he had pleaded not guilty, ground that their further prosecution barred double jeopardy prohibitions Fifth Fourteenth Amendments. The Appeals affirmed. Held: Double Jeopardy Clause does prohibit State from continuing its murder robbery charges. Pp. 497-502. (a) This case concern protection against multiple punishments for same offense. That is designed ensure sentencing discretion courts confined limits established legislature. Here, court's dismissal more serious charges did than simply prevent imposition cumulative punishments; it halted completely proceedings ultimately would have led verdict guilt or innocence these prosecuting such offenses in single prosecution. 497-500. (b) Nor dismissed counts violate prohibition prosecutions. No interest protected implicated counts. Respondent only offered resolve part brought him, while objected disposing any without trial. He has been exposed conviction counts, nor opportunity marshal evidence resources once hone presentation through Moreover, acceptance plea lesser included greater remain pending none implications "implied acquittal" results rendered charged consider both offenses. Notwithstanding pleas, should be entitled use as sword completing 500-502. 6 St.3d 420, 453 N.E.2d 595 (1983), reversed remanded. John E. Shoop, Painesville, Ohio, petitioner. Albert L. Purola, Willoughby, respondent. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Kenneth Johnson four offenses, ranging Thomas Hill property Hill's apartment. plead but robbery. Over court "guilty" two most because judgment affirmed appeal state courts, we certiorari. 465 1004, 994, 79 228 (1984). We now reverse hold constitute type "multiple prosecution" prohibited Clause. 2 shot death apartment city Mentor-on-the-Lake, northeast Cleveland Lake Erie. Several weeks later, county murder,1 manslaughter,2 robbery,3 theft.4 Meanwhile, left arraigned until nearly years after killing. arraignment pleading sentenced term imprisonment. App. 19-21. moved him right under Amendment placed twice finding were, respectively, continued Pet. Cert. A24. 3 decision court. (1983). held circumstances "allied offens[e] similar import" id., at 422, N.E.2d, 598,5 reasoned since law permitted charge prevented crime distinguishable offense mental states required commit offense, killing, offender could convicted crimes.6 4 think mistaken observation "this concerns third prohibiting offense." Id., 421, 598.7 Clause, course, affords defendant three basic protections: 5 " '[It] protects second acquittal. It conviction. And offense.' Brown v. 432 161, 165, 97 2221, 2225, 53 187 (1977), quoting North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 717, 89 2072, 2076, 23 656 (1969). explained numerous occasions, bar retrial following acquittal ensures make repeated attempts convict individual, thereby exposing embarrassment, anxiety, expense, increasing risk erroneous impermissibly enhanced sentence. See, e.g., Wilson, 420 332, 343, 95 1013, 1021, 43 232 (1975); Green States, 355 184, 187-188, 78 221, 223-224, 199 (1957). 7 In contrast trials, final component jeopardy—protection punishments—is Because substantive power prescribe crimes determine vested with legislature, Wiltberger, Wheat. 76, 93, L.Ed. 37 (1820), question whether are "multiple" essentially legislative intent, see Missouri Hunter, 459 359, 366-368, 103 673, 678-679, 74 535 (1983).8 But where retried conviction, Clause's subsequent receives credit time already served. supra, U.S., 718, S.Ct., 2077. 8 accept, must, Court's determination Legislature intend punishment pairs involved here. before can ever punished will first found those Presumably event confront matter law, ruling preventing even stage never reached. While may protect convictions 9 urges, alternative basis affirming were Brief 17-18. concedes authority our charging 7. But, argues, sentence mean implicate below occasion address this argument.9 10 answer contention seems obvious us. related growing out returned indictment, all embraced within Respondent's argument apparently based assumption proceedings, like amoebae, capable being infinitely subdivided, so multicount indictment immediately raises just concluded. that, decline now. 11 Previously recognized prohibits when tried acquitted See (1977). "joyriding," is, operating auto owner's consent. sentenced. Subsequently, joyriding, previously separate proceeding 169, 2227. 12 do believe, however, principles finality prevention prosecutorial overreaching applied reach case. indictment. Here pending, moreover, convicting Cf. Price Georgia, 398 323, 329, 90 1757, 1761, 26 300 (1970); 191, 225. There governmental supposed prevent. On other hand, ending deny full fair who violated laws. Arizona Washington, 434 497, 509, 98 824, 832, 54 717 (1978). 13 clearer Jeffers 137, 2207, 168 rejected defendant's claim upon successive prosecutions, responsible insisting there rather consolidated trials. efforts directed disposition no contemplated. 14 For foregoing reasons robbery.10 Accordingly, reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. 15 ordered. 16 BRENNAN, concurring dissenting part. 17 my view, respect rests independent adequate grounds. I agree Court, 18 STEVENS, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 19 A legal effect jury's verdict. authorized place prison several years. expressly recognizes, "the . Ante, 501. statement fits precisely. Since correct affirm insofar denied prosecute murder.a1 elements are: "(A) person shall purposely cause another. "(B) Whoever violates section provided 2929.02 Revised Code." Rev.Code Ann. § 2903.02 (1982). another proximate offender's committing attempting felony. misdemeanor. "(C) manslaughter. Violation division (A) felony degree. (B) degree." 2903.04 (1982 Supp.1983). statutory person, defined 2913.01 Code, fleeing attempt either following: "(1) Have deadly weapon dangerous ordnance about control; "(2) Inflict, inflict physical harm 2911.01 follows: purpose deprive owner services, knowingly obtain exert control .: Without consent give consent; Beyond scope express implied "(3) By deception; "(4) threat. If value services stolen hundred fifty dollars more, if listed 2913.71 violation fourth 2913.02 offense," interpreted share common commission necessitate other. Logan, 60 St.2d 126, 128, 397 1345, 1347 (1979). logical interpretation holding murder. opinion, considered mutually exclusive, suggest St.3d, 424, 599. very next sentence, Blockburger test, i.e., accords collateral estoppel Ashe Swenson, 436, 1189, 25 469 (1970), relevance face threshold attack jurisdiction review below. seizes reference syllabus accompanying argue rested ground. Ordinarily, state-court judgment, "appears rest primarily federal interwoven law," "adequacy independence possible clear opinion." Michigan Long, 463 1032, 1040-1041, 3469, 3476, 77 1201 presumption must light rule provides appears syllabus, portion majority agree. ex rel. Donahey Edmondson, St. 105 N.E. 269 (1913); also Perkins Benguet Mining Co., 342 437, 441-442, 72 413, 416-417, 96 485 (1952). germane interpreting expressed syllabus. Hart Andrews, 218, 132 846, 847 (1921). Indeed, grounds clearly predicated felt compelled examine ruled differently "had free, decisions, so." Perkins, 443, 417. indicates articulate state-law decision. refers determining allied both. explain why continue press forward multi-count statute bars plainly admits possibility 2941.25 look shows judge writing believed proscribed punishments. 597. much easier discern, text directly jeopardy. Although might arguably version, Const., Art. I, 10, failure indicate invoked, coupled references decisions (1969), convinces us Amendment. test 284 299, 304, 52 180, 182, 76 306 (1932), ordinarily determines indeed imposed. Albernaz 450 333, 337, 101 1137, 1141, 67 275 (1981); Whalen 445 684, 691, 100 1432, 1437, 63 715 (1980). evident necessarily inquiry into intent Even Blockburger, legislature intended authorize punishments, end. argues enunciated (1970). exclusive crimes, n. 6, taking adjudication merits trial, took Swenson. this, made effort seriatim, considerations implicit application inapplicable. need manner existing proceeds issue appearing involve construction fashion appropriate relief. Rule Crim.Proc. 32.1 (1982); cf. 1762, a1 far concerned, perfectly meaning precludes cavalier disregard aspect totally unprecedented.

Category: 0