Dickenson v. Israel, 80-1334
| Decision Date | 11 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1334,80-1334 |
| Citation | 644 F.2d 308 |
| Parties | Clarence Anthony DICKENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas ISRAEL, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
W. Dan Bell, Jr., Madison, Wis., for petitioner-appellant.
Thomas J. Balistreri, Asst. Atty. Gen., Wis. Dept. of Justice, Madison, Wis., for respondent-appellee.
Before SWYGERT, CUMMINGS and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
This is a habeas proceeding in which the main issue is whether a state criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment right to be free from double jeopardy was violated when a state appellate court vacated the defendant's conviction of the charged offense but affirmed the implicit conviction of a lesser included offense. We hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not violated.
Petitioner-appellant Clarence Dickenson was tried and convicted for armed robbery in a Wisconsin state court. On appeal the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Dickenson v. State, 75 Wis.2d 47, 248 N.W.2d 447 (1977) held the evidence insufficient to support the charge, but did find it sufficient to support a conviction for simple robbery. After reversing the conviction, the appellate court remanded the case to the state trial court for entry of conviction and sentencing on the lesser included offense. The trial court did as directed and reduced the original prison sentence from twenty-five years to nine years.
Petitioner contends that the action of the Wisconsin Supreme Court exposed him to successive prosecution for the same criminal conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. He relies on the holding in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). In that case the Sixth Circuit, 547 F.2d 968 (6th Cir. 1976), reversed a defendant's bank robbery conviction, finding that the prosecution at trial had tendered insufficient evidence to rebut an insanity defense. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether an acquittal should be entered or a new trial ordered. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded a second trial once the evidence was found to be insufficient to overcome the defense of insanity. The Court ruled that the only "just" remedy available was to direct an acquittal.
Petitioner maintains that because the Wisconsin Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to support petitioner's conviction for armed robbery, it was precluded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunn
...Sherod, 960 F.2d 1075, 1076 (D.C.Cir.1992); Dickenson v. Israel, 482 F.Supp. 1223, 1226 (E.D.Wis.1980), aff'd & opinion adopted, 644 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.1981).5 Most of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure were originally codified in chapter 35 of title 77 of the Utah Code. After we adopted t......
-
Brooks v. State
...and enter judgment on a lesser-included offense); Dickenson v. Israel, 482 F.Supp. 1223, 1225-1226 (E.D.Wis.1980),aff'd, 644 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.1981) (same); State v. Grant, 177 Conn. 140, 147-149, 411 A.2d 917, 920-921 (1979) (same); see Morris v. Mathews, 475 U.S. 237, 246-247, 106 S.Ct. 1......
-
80 Hawai'i 126, State v. Malufau
...v. Cavanaugh, 948 F.2d 405, 409 (8th Cir.1991). See also United States v. Dickinson, 706 F.2d 88, 93 (2d Cir.1983); Dickenson v. Israel, 644 F.2d 308, 309 (7th Cir.1981); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Josiah, 641 F.2d 1103, 1108 (3d Cir.1981). Furthermore, most state courts have follo......
-
People v. Knaff
...ordering the entry of a judgment on a lesser-included offense. Dickenson v. Israel, 482 F.Supp. 1223, 1225 (E.D.Wis.1980), aff'd, 644 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.1981) (the Seventh Circuit adopted the opinion of the district court in its entirety); see also, e.g., People v. Williams, 267 Ill.App.3d 8......