Citation network
Jones Vs. Thomas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1989
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. 376 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. ThomasSearch
-
U.S. 376 (1989) Jones v. ThomasSearch
-
that could have been imposed by law, he could not be required to serve the other. It held further that Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended. Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
it has been completed. Sentencing is not a game where a wrong move by a judge means immunity for the prisoner. Bozza v. UnitedSearch
-
year sentence to run first. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed respondent's conviction on direct appeal. State v. ThomasSearch
-
had not intended to allow separate punishments under the felony murder statute. Page 491 U. S. 379 See State v. MorganSearch
-
State v. OldsSearch
-
by the trial court's ruling, as his entire time of incarceration was credited against the life sentence. Thomas v. StateSearch
-
that, as a result of the Governor's commutation, respondent had legally satisfied the 15-year sentence. See State v. CernySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
went on, however, to hold that the double jeopardy violation could be cured under this Court's decision in Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
same offense after acquittal, and against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. See, e.g., Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
imposed in a single proceeding. See North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits punishment in excess of that authorized by the legislature, see United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
served under one sentence against the term of another has long been an accepted practice. See, e.g., North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
two sentences may be cured by vacating the shorter of the two sentences, even where it has been completed. See Hardy v. PageSearch
-
United States v. LeatherSearch
-
Bozza v. UnitedSearch
-
provided an absolute bar to multiple punishments in a single trial regardless of legislative intent, see Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
that the state court could not cure the double jeopardy violation through the alternative procedure approved in Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
of felony murder based on the robbery. The second conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e.g., Harris v. OklahomaSearch
-
no legal significance. Because nonfelony murder is not the same offense as attempted robbery, see, e.g., Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
be no double jeopardy bar to punishing Thomas for that offense, even through a second full trial. The rule of Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
growing out Page 491 U. S. 388 of a single criminal transaction be tried in one proceeding. See Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
a prosecutorial error after the jury has been impaneled permits the defendant to go off scot free. E.g., Downum v. UnitedSearch
-
armed robbery sentence could be imposed for the same crime. The Missouri Supreme Court has said not. See State v. MorganSearch
-
Ante at 491 U. S. 381 , quoting Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
multiple penalties, the penalties had been imposed (or would have been imposed) in a single proceeding. See Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
legislature, was imposed in a later proceeding, we held that the Double Jeopardy Clause was a bar. In United States v. HalperSearch
-
of a single proceeding focuses on whether the legislature actually authorized the cumulative punishment. See Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
in the original sentence. See id. at 449 U. S. 136 -137. We applied the same rule in Pennsylvania v. GoldhammerSearch
-
United States v. FogelSearch
-
F.2d 77, 87 (1987) (Bork, J.). The principle enunciated in DiFrancesco also explains our decision in Bozza v. UnitedSearch
-
in the first instance. See 330 U.S. at 330 U. S. 166 , 330 U. S. 167 . See also United States v. Arrellano-RiosSearch
-
United States v. EdmondsonSearch
-
that the State could not resentence or retry respondent for a nonjeopardy-barred lesser included offense, see Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. ThomasSearch
-
State v. ThomasSearch
-
See State v. MorganSearch
-
Thomas v. StateSearch
-
See State v. CernySearch
-
See North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
See Hardy v. PageSearch
-
Harris v. OklahomaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial