Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
67 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Keffergreen2 sentences2013In upholding two convictions, we averred: In instances where the protection against multiple punishments is implicated and multiple convictions are based on violations of different statutes, a double jeopardy claim is analyzed under the "same elements" test described in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), which Wyoming adopted in State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1131 (Wyo.1993). 2013State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1130-31 (Wyo.1993). [T48] In a recent decision, we expressed our recognition that federal law is firmly grounded in its reliance on the same elements test for double jeopardy analysis, and we cited our own continuing allegiance to that approach: Federal double jeopardy law appears to have been settled in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), with the Supreme Court's holding that "[in both the multiple punishment and multiple prosecution contexts, this Court has concluded that where the two offenses for which t | 4 | 5 |
Benton v. Marylandgreen2 sentences1988"The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Birr v. State, 744 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Wyo. 1987) (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). 1988"The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Birr v. State, 744 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Wyo. 1987) (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). | 3 | 7 |
Rivera v. Stategreen2 sentences2013"We have repeatedly stated that the double jeopardy clause provides three protections: '[Ilt prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense."" Owen v. State, 902 P.2d 190, 192 (Wyo.1995), quoting Rivera v. State, 840 P.2d 933, 942 (Wyo.1992). 1995We have repeatedly stated that the double jeopardy clause provides three protections: “[I]t prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense.” Rivera v. State, 840 P.2d 933, 942 (Wyo.1992). | 3 | 3 |
Jesse Jodean Veatch v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024“If the elements are the same, they are the same offense, and the double jeopardy clause therefore protects against successive prosecution and multiple punishments arising from those offenses.” Id., 533 P.3d at 509 (citing Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S. Ct. at 182 ; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696-98 , 113 S. Ct. 2849, 2856 , 125 L. 2024“If the elements are the same, they are the same offense, and the double jeopardy clause therefore protects against successive prosecution and multiple punishments arising from those offenses.” Id., 533 P.3d at 509 (citing Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S. Ct. at 182 ; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696-98 , 113 S. Ct. 2849, 2856 , 125 L. | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., United States v. Pettus, 303 F.3d 480, 487 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Woods, 127 F.3d 990, 992 (11th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Kerrick, 2024 WL 1878758 , at *3 (D.C. 2024See, e.g., United States v. Pettus, 303 F.3d 480, 487 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Woods, 127 F.3d 990, 992 (11th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Kerrick, 2024 WL 1878758 , at *3 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
Sinning v. Stategreen2 sentences2024We conclude his reliance on the double jeopardy clause is misplaced. 2 See Counts v. State, 2008 WY 156, ¶ 13 , 197 P.3d 1280, 1284 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Sinning v. State, 2007 WY 193, ¶ 24 , 172 P.3d 388, 393 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶8] Various federal courts have determined a probation revocation is attributable to the original conviction and is not a new punishment. 2024We conclude his reliance on the double jeopardy clause is misplaced. 2 See Counts v. State, 2008 WY 156, ¶ 13 , 197 P.3d 1280, 1284 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Sinning v. State, 2007 WY 193, ¶ 24 , 172 P.3d 388, 393 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶8] Various federal courts have determined a probation revocation is attributable to the original conviction and is not a new punishment. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Pettusgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., United States v. Pettus, 303 F.3d 480, 487 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Woods, 127 F.3d 990, 992 (11th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Kerrick, 2024 WL 1878758 , at *3 (D.C. 2024See, e.g., United States v. Pettus, 303 F.3d 480, 487 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Woods, 127 F.3d 990, 992 (11th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Kerrick, 2024 WL 1878758 , at *3 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
Counts v. Stategreen2 sentences2024We conclude his reliance on the double jeopardy clause is misplaced. 2 See Counts v. State, 2008 WY 156, ¶ 13 , 197 P.3d 1280, 1284 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Sinning v. State, 2007 WY 193, ¶ 24 , 172 P.3d 388, 393 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶8] Various federal courts have determined a probation revocation is attributable to the original conviction and is not a new punishment. 2024We conclude his reliance on the double jeopardy clause is misplaced. 2 See Counts v. State, 2008 WY 156, ¶ 13 , 197 P.3d 1280, 1284 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Sinning v. State, 2007 WY 193, ¶ 24 , 172 P.3d 388, 393 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶8] Various federal courts have determined a probation revocation is attributable to the original conviction and is not a new punishment. | 2 | 2 |
DeSpain v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Compare, DeSpain v. State, 865 P.2d 584 (Wyo.1993) (holding a double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions for a single criminal event must be brought in a petition for post conviction relief pursuant to Wyo. 1994However, this court decided in DeSpain v. State, 865 P.2d 584 (Wyo.1993), that, upon exhaustion of the right to directly appeal from conviction, post-conviction relief provided through Wyo.Stat. § 7-14-101 through 108 (1987 & Supp.1993) is the only proper method of gaining relief on a double jeopardy claim. | 1 | 4 |
Ball v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017It also concedes that, if a double jeopardy violation occurred,' Appellant suffered material prejudice because a “second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible punishment.” Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72 , ¶ 7 n.2, 302 P.3d 913 , 916 n.2 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 , 106 S.Ct. 1668, 1673 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)). 2017It also concedes that, if a double jeopardy violation occurred,' Appellant suffered material prejudice because a “second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible punishment.” Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72 , ¶ 7 n.2, 302 P.3d 913 , 916 n.2 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 , 106 S.Ct. 1668, 1673 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)). | 1 | 3 |
Ohio v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2013Daniel, ¶ 8, 189 P.3d at 862 , citing Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 501 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2542 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984) and Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). [¶ 9] The parties agree that, to determine whether incest is a lesser included offense of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, the test to be applied is set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): "The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be ap 2013Daniel, ¶ 8, 189 P.3d at 862 , citing Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 501 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2542 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984) and Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). [¶ 9] The parties agree that, to determine whether incest is a lesser included offense of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, the test to be applied is set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): "The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be ap | 1 | 3 |
Birr v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Stat. Ann. § 6-2-3806 indicates that the previous version of the statute was unconstitutional. 2 We disagree. [112] We note initially that a double jeopardy claim is not cognizable and cannot be entertained on a motion to correct an illegal sentence because "a double jeopardy claim brought in this procedural context [is] a challenge to the convictions and not to the sentence." Birr v. State, 878 P.2d 515, 516 (Wyo.1994). 2006Stat. Ann. §§ 7-14-101 , et seq. rather *266 than in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under W.R.Cr.P. 35(a)), and Birr v. State, 878 P.2d 515 (Wyo.1994), upon rehearing, 895 P.2d 43 (Wyo.1995). [¶ 14] Before we address the merits of the appellants' arguments, we consider whether their claims are barred by res judicata. | 1 | 3 |
International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwellgreen2 sentences2018"As used in the Double Jeopardy Clause, 'same offense' means 'the same crime, not the same transaction, acts, circumstances, or situation.' " Parker v. State , 882 P.2d 1225 , 1229 (Wyo. 1994) (citations omitted.) "The United States Supreme Court has recognized that nonsummary criminal contempt is a crime for the purposes of a double jeopardy analysis." Munoz v. Munoz , 2002 WY 4 , ¶ 8, 39 P.3d 390 , 392 (Wyo. 2002) (citing International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell , 512 U.S. 821 , 114 S.Ct. 2552 , 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994) ; United States v. Dixon , 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 2018"As used in the Double Jeopardy Clause, 'same offense' means 'the same crime, not the same transaction, acts, circumstances, or situation.' " Parker v. State , 882 P.2d 1225 , 1229 (Wyo. 1994) (citations omitted.) "The United States Supreme Court has recognized that nonsummary criminal contempt is a crime for the purposes of a double jeopardy analysis." Munoz v. Munoz , 2002 WY 4 , ¶ 8, 39 P.3d 390 , 392 (Wyo. 2002) (citing International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell , 512 U.S. 821 , 114 S.Ct. 2552 , 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994) ; United States v. Dixon , 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 | 1 | 2 |
Oregon v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2016That argument misconstrues the standard to establish a double jeopardy violation, “Prosecutorial conduct that might be viewed as harassment or overreaching, even if sufficient to justify a mistrial on defendant’s motion, ... does not bar retrial absent intent on the part of the prosecutor to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 675-76 , 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2089 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). 2016That argument misconstrues the standard to establish a double jeopardy violation, “Prosecutorial conduct that might be viewed as harassment or overreaching, even if sufficient to justify a mistrial on defendant’s motion, ... does not bar retrial absent intent on the part of the prosecutor to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 675-76 , 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2089 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). | 1 | 2 |
Daniel Ray Bowlsby v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2017It also concedes that, if a double jeopardy violation occurred,' Appellant suffered material prejudice because a “second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible punishment.” Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72 , ¶ 7 n.2, 302 P.3d 913 , 916 n.2 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 , 106 S.Ct. 1668, 1673 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)). 2017It also concedes that, if a double jeopardy violation occurred,' Appellant suffered material prejudice because a “second conviction, even if it results in no greater sentence, is an impermissible punishment.” Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72 , ¶ 7 n.2, 302 P.3d 913 , 916 n.2 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 , 106 S.Ct. 1668, 1673 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Brocegreen2 sentences2016It asserts, however, that in United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 , 109 S.Ct. 757 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989), the Supreme Court clarified that not all double jeopardy. claims are jurisdictional and in certain cireumstances a guilty plea will waive a double jeopardy claim. 2016It asserts, however, that in United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 , 109 S.Ct. 757 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989), the Supreme Court clarified that not all double jeopardy. claims are jurisdictional and in certain cireumstances a guilty plea will waive a double jeopardy claim. | 1 | 2 |
Daniel v. Stategreen2 sentences2009First, quoting Daniel v. State, 2008 WY 87, ¶ 8 , 189 P.3d 859, 862 (Wyo. 2008), he contends that the double jeopardy clause prohibits the prosecution of a person for a greater offense after he has been convicted of a lesser-included offense. 2009First, quoting Daniel v. State, 2008 WY 87, ¶ 8 , 189 P.3d 859, 862 (Wyo. 2008), he contends that the double jeopardy clause prohibits the prosecution of a person for a greater offense after he has been convicted of a lesser-included offense. | 1 | 2 |
Grady v. Corbinred2 sentences1992Phillips II, 835 P.2d at 1068 ; see also United States v. Felix, supra, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (holding that “long antedating any of these cases [Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977)], and not questioned in any of them, is the rule that a substantive crime, and a conspiracy to commit that crime, are not the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes,” and that “a mere overlap of proof between two prosecutions doe 1992Phillips II, 835 P.2d at 1068 ; see also United States v. Felix, supra, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (holding that “long antedating any of these cases [Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977)], and not questioned in any of them, is the rule that a substantive crime, and a conspiracy to commit that crime, are not the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes,” and that “a mere overlap of proof between two prosecutions doe | 1 | 2 |
Winters v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Winters v. State, 2019 WY 76 , ¶ 100, 446 P.3d 191, 221 (Wyo. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Wittiggreen | 1 | 1 |
Larkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Larkins v. State , 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 94, 429 P.3d 28 , 50 (Wyo. 2018) ("[T]he concern [in plain error review] is whether the alleged error undermines confidence in the outcome."); W.R.A.P. 9.05 (" Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.") (emphasis added); W.R.Cr.P. 52(b) (same). 18 U.S.C. § 3731 states: In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information or granting a new | 1 | 1 |
| Eatherton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Munoz v. Munozgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tucker v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Calhoungreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Bonillagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Randy Wayne Thomas v. Dareld Kerby Attorney General of the State of New Mexicogreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Tafoyagreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ehlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robert Lemke v. Charles Ryangreen | 1 | 1 |
| George E. Taylor, Jr. v. John P. Whitley, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiarygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. William Pollengreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 597501green | 1 | 1 |
| Snow v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kevin Allen Walker v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Iverson Troy Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Stefanidakisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Keltygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Juan Adame-Hernandezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2024“If the elements are the same, they are the same offense, and the double jeopardy clause therefore protects against successive prosecution and multiple punishments arising from those offenses.” Id., 533 P.3d at 509 (citing Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S. Ct. at 182 ; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696-98 , 113 S. Ct. 2849, 2856 , 125 L. 2014In Tucker v. State, 2010 WY 162 , 245 P.3d 301 (Wyo.2010), we established: In instances where the protection against multiple punishments is implicated *1082 and multiple convictions are based on violations of different statutes, a double jeopardy claim is analyzed under the "same elements" test described in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1982), ... | 8 | 1992–2024 |
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2024“If the elements are the same, they are the same offense, and the double jeopardy clause therefore protects against successive prosecution and multiple punishments arising from those offenses.” Id., 533 P.3d at 509 (citing Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S. Ct. at 182 ; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696-98 , 113 S. Ct. 2849, 2856 , 125 L. 2024“If the elements are the same, they are the same offense, and the double jeopardy clause therefore protects against successive prosecution and multiple punishments arising from those offenses.” Id., 533 P.3d at 509 (citing Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S. Ct. at 182 ; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696-98 , 113 S. Ct. 2849, 2856 , 125 L. | 7 | 2002–2024 |
Brown v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1989The Court distinguished Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , and held that the second trial did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. 1989The Court distinguished Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , and held that the second trial did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. | 6 | 1987–2013 |
North Carolina v. Pearce
red
2 sentences2013In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 , *917 109 S.Ct. 2201 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held as follows: « And [the double jeopardy clause] protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. 2013In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 , *917 109 S.Ct. 2201 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held as follows: « And [the double jeopardy clause] protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. | 4 | 1977–2013 |
Missouri v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2013The double jeopardy clause prevents a "sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended." Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). 2013The double jeopardy clause prevents a "sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended." Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). | 3 | 1993–2013 |
Goetzel v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. ¶ 5, 406 P.3d at 311 . 2018Id. ¶ 5, 406 P.3d at 311 . | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Harris v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1992Phillips II, 835 P.2d at 1068 ; see also United States v. Felix, supra, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (holding that “long antedating any of these cases [Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977)], and not questioned in any of them, is the rule that a substantive crime, and a conspiracy to commit that crime, are not the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes,” and that “a mere overlap of proof between two prosecutions doe 1992Phillips II, 835 P.2d at 1068 ; see also United States v. Felix, supra, 112 S.Ct. 1377 (holding that “long antedating any of these cases [Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977)], and not questioned in any of them, is the rule that a substantive crime, and a conspiracy to commit that crime, are not the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes,” and that “a mere overlap of proof between two prosecutions doe | 2 | 1989–1992 |
Garrett v. United States
green
2 sentences1989In Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. at 778 , 105 S.Ct. at 2411 the Court said: Where the same conduct violates two statutory provisions, the first step in the double jeopardy analysis is to determine whether the legislature — in this case Congress — intended that each violation be a separate offense. 1989In Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. at 778 , 105 S.Ct. at 2411 the Court said: Where the same conduct violates two statutory provisions, the first step in the double jeopardy analysis is to determine whether the legislature — in this case Congress — intended that each violation be a separate offense. | 2 | 1988–1989 |
| Razzaq v. Old Dominion University green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mancillas v. United States
green
1 sentence2019Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 529 U.S. 1005 , 120 S.Ct. 1272 , 146 L.Ed.2d 221 (2000) ) (in analyzing a double jeopardy claim, "[w]here two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved ... by asking what act the legislature intended as the 'unit of prosecution' under the statute."). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Earp v. California green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hicks v. State
green
2 sentences2019Hicks v. State , 2018 WY 15 , ¶¶ 13-14, 409 P.3d 1256 , 1259 (Wyo. 2018). [¶19] Importantly, Goetzel never asserted, in his previous appeal from his motion to *871 correct an illegal sentence or in any of his previous motions, that he somehow was precluded from raising double jeopardy issues. 4 This doctrine has been established in Wyoming under these circumstances since 2005, if not before. 2019Hicks v. State , 2018 WY 15 , ¶¶ 13-14, 409 P.3d 1256 , 1259 (Wyo. 2018). [¶19] Importantly, Goetzel never asserted, in his previous appeal from his motion to *871 correct an illegal sentence or in any of his previous motions, that he somehow was precluded from raising double jeopardy issues. 4 This doctrine has been established in Wyoming under these circumstances since 2005, if not before. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Ex Parte Jones green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Ex Parte Hudson green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Yates v. United States green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Parker v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Kenneth Dale Nicodemus v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Arizona v. Washington green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Funchess v. Wainwright green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| United States v. Paula R. Washington green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Menna v. New York green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Ivan Lee Sweets, Sr. v. The State of Wyoming green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Tucker v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Moronese v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Silva v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Alabama v. Smith green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Simonds v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| United States v. Lossiah green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Tibbs v. Florida green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Diaz v. United States green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.