Citation network
Thigpen Vs. Roberts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1984
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 27 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Thigpen v. RobertsSearch
-
U.S. 27 (1984) Thigpen v. RobertsSearch
-
statutory right to appeal his misdemeanor convictions, was unconstitutional as a violation of due process. Blackledge v. PerrySearch
-
Roberts v. StateSearch
-
required proof of all the elements of reckless driving, of which Roberts had already been convicted. See Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
for which Roberts had already been convicted of four misdemeanors violated the Due Process Clause. See Blackledge v. PerrySearch
-
on any ground that the law and the record permit and that will not expand the relief granted below. United States v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 159 , 434 U. S. 166 , n. 8 (1977). Because this case is plainly controlled by Blackledge v. PerrySearch
-
the situation analogous to the imposition of a stiffer sentence after reversal and reconviction. See North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
arises in part from assumptions about the individual's personal stake in the proceedings, is inappropriate. Cf. Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
At oral argument, the State suggested that Blackledge had been overruled, or at least modified, by United States v. GoodwinSearch
-
not. This argument closely resembled their double jeopardy argument, both focusing on the rule set out in Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
In this regard, we note that the Blackledge presumption is rebuttable. See United States v. GoodwinSearch
-
whether the Court of Appeals properly applied our decision in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
ground. The only precedent cited for this unexplained -- and I dare say unexplainable -- decision is United States v. NewSearch
-
urged by the respondent. Page 468 U. S. 34 See id. at 434 U. S. 174 -178. See also Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
Department of Corrections. Respondent's conviction was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Roberts v. StateSearch
-
because Roberts has a substantial double jeopardy claim under the Supreme Court's holding in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
believe that the Court of Appeals mistakenly relied upon a mere form of expression in the Court's opinion in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
by the State to convict in a particular case. Nonetheless, the Court went on in Vitale to distinguish Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
inquiry based on the evidence the State introduced at trial. I think that there are ambiguities in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
to do it is an unexampled abdication of its responsibility. I would unambiguously reaffirm the statement in Brown v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 161 (1977), relied upon in Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
U.S. at 432 U. S. 166 , quoting Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
of Appeals set aside a state court conviction. I believe that a straightforward analysis of the holding in Brown v. OhioSearch
-
test to a question of statutory construction, the Court in Iannelli v. UnitedSearch
-
of a crime determines whether particular crimes are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. See Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
Because the Court of Appeals did not pass upon respondent's due process claim based upon our decision in Blackledge v. PerrySearch
-
Our decision in Langnes v. GreenSearch
-
Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
case which the Court of Appeals suggested created a separate, nonstatutory crime of manslaughter by automobile, Smith v. StateSearch
-
result in a new crime of manslaughter by automobile should be clear from the following analysis of Smith in Dickerson v. StateSearch
-
has been authoritatively construed in Smith v. StateSearch
-
Id. at 538 (citing to Smith v. StateSearch
-
more than an effort to illuminate what the court meant by culpable negligence in those circumstances. Cf. Latiker v. StateSearch
-
Gregory v. StateSearch
-
the Court of Appeals' ruling should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Blackledge v. PerrySearch
-
Two-tier systems for adjudicating less serious criminal cases such as traffic offenses are extremely common. Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
this Term to review double jeopardy problems arising out of a two-tier trial. See Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. LydonSearch
-
of the peace court has an absolute right to a trial de novo if he chooses to appeal his conviction. See Calhoun v. CitySearch
-
Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment below and remand for further consideration in light of Blackledge v. PerrySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Thigpen v. RobertsSearch
-
Roberts v. StateSearch
-
See Illinois v. VitaleSearch
-
the Due Process Clause. See Blackledge v. PerrySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial