Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialhabeas corpusdue processdouble jeopardylegislative intentsentencing guidelines

defendanttrialhabeas corpusdue processdouble jeopardyappellant

Related Cases

Taylor v. Com. of Pa., 686 F.Supp. 492

Facts

The case arose from the defendant's involvement in two accidents on March 4, 1985, where he struck two children with his pickup truck and failed to stop. After driving approximately one and a half miles, he lost control of his vehicle and was arrested by police who noted his intoxicated state. A breathalyzer test revealed a blood alcohol level of .19. The defendant was convicted of two counts of driving under the influence and one count of leaving the scene of an accident involving death or injury.

Appellant was arrested after police, who had been notified that a hit and run driver was at the scene of a second accident, noticed appellant's inebriated condition. He exhibited the classic physical symptoms of intoxication, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, impaired coordination, and exuded a pronounced aroma of intoxicants.

Issue

Did the imposition of consecutive sentences violate the double jeopardy clause, and was the evidence sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction?

Defendant first claims that his sentence violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the double jeopardy clause.

Rule

The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the sentencing court from imposing greater punishment than intended by the legislature, and due process protections at sentencing are less stringent than at trial.

In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366, 103 S.Ct. 673, 678, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), a case dealing with cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial, the court held that 'the Double Jeopardy Clause does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the nature of the offenses and the sentencing guidelines, concluding that the consecutive sentences were within the legislative intent. The court also found that the evidence, including the defendant's intoxication and the circumstances of the accidents, supported the conviction.

The evidence supporting petitioner's driving while under the influence charge was outlined in the opinion of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the following manner: The changes stemmed from appellant's involvement in two accidents occurring on March 4, 1985. The first of these resulted in the deaths of two children who were struck by appellant's pickup truck as he swerved out of the right lane onto the berm of the road where the children stood.

Conclusion

The court upheld the defendant's conviction and denied the petition for habeas corpus, finding no violations of constitutional rights.

The court has carefully examined petitioner's arguments and finds them to be without merit.

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case as the court upheld the conviction and denied the habeas corpus petition, citing sufficient evidence and adherence to legal standards.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357

In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Ind. on Oct. 31, 1994, 96 F.3d 932, 65 USLW 2230

In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200, 8 S.Ct. 482, 31 L.Ed. 402

Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 122 S.Ct. 1764, 152 L.Ed.2d 888, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4307, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5472, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 281

Sylvester v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1126