United States Ninth Circuit

The district court's denial of defendant's habeas corpus petition based on the Double Jeopardy Clause is affirmed, where: 1) after the jury convicted defendant of lesser included offenses of theft and conspiracy to commit theft, but was unable to reach a verdict on the felony murder charge, defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for a concurrent sentence to avoid a retrial on that charge; 2) defendant did not waive his Double Jeopardy claim merely by entering a guilty plea, or in the broad waiver clause of his plea agreement; 3) the prosecution of defendant for armed robbery felony murder after his implied acquittal of armed robbery was a prosecution for the same offense, but was not a "successive" prosecution for Double Jeopardy purposes because original jeopardy had not terminated for the count for which the jury failed to reach a verdict; 4) consequently, the state court's rejection of defendant's claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and 5) retrial was not barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/19/2013
• Published 06/19/2013

Judges

• CANBY

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel