State v. Bullock, 15626

Decision Date04 January 1979
Docket NumberNo. 15626,15626
Citation589 P.2d 777
PartiesThe STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glen BULLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Jack W. Kunkler of Salt Lake Legal Def. Assn., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Craig L. Barlow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Bullock was co-defendant with one Austin in an aggravated robbery charge, incident to a holdup at the Carlton Hotel. He was convicted as charged, and appealed. We affirm the conviction.

All of the issues concerning the search and seizure raised by Bullock were at issue in the appeal of Bullock's co-defendant, one Austin. That case 1 disposed of the same search and seizure issues, and is controlling here.

Bullock raises an additional issue viz., double jeopardy.

Bullock was on probation at the time of his arrest, and his probation was revoked prior to trial. Bullock claims this defense, because the same elements used to justify revocation of his probation were used to convict him of the crime. Such a point has no merit. 2 A person on parole or probation, who commits crime, may have his limited liberty canceled; and also be punished for the new crime. Such does not violate our constitution, Art. I, Sec. 14. 3

ELLETT, C. J., and WILKINS, CROCKETT and HALL, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Kell
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • November 1, 2002
    ...proceedings have no effect on the double jeopardy provision. See, e.g., State v. Menzies, 601 P.2d 925, 926 (Utah 1979); State v. Bullock, 589 P.2d 777 (Utah 1979). Thus, defendant's contention that holding a trial following prison disciplinary proceedings violates the double jeopardy provi......
  • State v. Abbott
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1983
    ...87 Ill.App.3d 1044, 42 Ill.Dec. 922, 409 N.E.2d 537 (Ill.App.1980); Aldridge v. State, 273 S.E.2d 656 (Ga.App.1980); State v. Bullock, 589 P.2d 777 (Utah 1979); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 240. Cf. Gillis v. Swenson, 495 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo. banc 1973). We see no reason why a different rule sh......
  • Johns v. Shulsen
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1986
    ...a defendant is convicted of criminal charges and those same facts are used as grounds for revoking the defendant's parole. State v. Bullock, Utah, 589 P.2d 777 (1979) (relying upon Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). We have also held that dismissal of ......
  • State v. Maguire, 950246-CA
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 1996
    ... ... Such does not violate our constitution ... " State v. Bullock, 589 P.2d 777 ... (Utah 1979); see also Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) ... Limitation on Resentencing ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT