467 U.S. 493, 104 S. Ct. 2536, 81 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1984)
Thomas Hill was shot to death in his apartment in the city of Mentor-on-the-Lake, a city northeast of Cleveland on Lake Erie.1 Several weeks later, a county grand jury indicted respondent Kenneth Johnson on one count each of murder, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated robbery, and grand theft.2 The charges arose as a result of the killing of Thomas Hill and the theft of property from Hill’s apartment.3
Johnson had left Ohio and was not arraigned on the charges until nearly two years after the killing.4 At his arraignment respondent offered to plead guilty only to the charges of involuntary manslaughter and grand theft, while pleading not guilty to the more serious offenses of murder and aggravated robbery.5 Over the State’s objection, the trial court accepted the guilty pleas and sentenced respondent to a term of imprisonment.6
Respondent then moved to dismiss the remaining charges against him on the ground that their further prosecution would violate his right under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment not to be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense.7 The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the two most serious charges. It found that involuntary manslaughter and grand theft were lesser included offenses of murder and aggravated robbery, respectively.8
The Ohio Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the decision of the trial court.9 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio.10
Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the State from continuing its prosecution on charges of murder and aggravated robbery after the defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser included offenses of involuntary manslaughter and grand theft?11
No. All four charges were embraced within a single indictment and prosecution from the outset.14 Unlike the successive prosecutions in Brown v. Ohio, respondent offered to resolve only part of the charges while the State objected to disposing of any counts without a trial.15 Respondent has not been exposed to conviction on the charges to which he pleaded not guilty.16 The State has not had the opportunity to marshal its evidence and resources more than once or to hone its presentation through a trial.17
The acceptance of guilty pleas to lesser included offenses while greater charges remain pending carries none of the implications of an implied acquittal from a jury verdict.18 Ending prosecution now would deny the State its right to one full and fair opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws.19
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the State from continuing its prosecution of respondent on the charges of murder and aggravated robbery.20
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan stated that in his view the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court with respect to the aggravated robbery charge rests on independent and adequate state grounds.21 He agreed with the Court that continued prosecution of respondent on the charge of murder after respondent pleaded guilty to the charge of involuntary manslaughter was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.22 Brennan therefore parted company with the majority only on the robbery charge while joining the disposition as to murder.
A conviction based on a plea of guilty has the same legal effect as a conviction based on a jury’s verdict.23 The conviction in this case authorized the State of Ohio to place respondent in prison for several years.24 As the Court expressly recognizes, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecution of a defendant for a greater offense when he has already been convicted on the lesser included offense.25
That statement fits this case precisely.26 Since it is a correct statement of the law, I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio insofar as it denied the State the right to prosecute respondent on the charge of murder.27
Whether the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court rests on an adequate and independent state ground that precludes review by the Supreme Court of the United States?28
No. The Ohio Supreme Court held that aggravated robbery was an allied offense of similar import to theft and that involuntary manslaughter was a lesser included offense of murder.31 The decision is interwoven with federal double jeopardy law because the court applied principles from the Double Jeopardy Clause to bar the prosecution on the greater charges.32
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio.33
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan stated that in his view the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court with respect to the aggravated robbery charge rests on independent and adequate state grounds. He therefore concluded that this aspect of the state court decision rested on state law and precluded further review on the robbery charge.
As far as the charge of aggravated robbery is concerned, it is perfectly obvious that the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court rests on the adequate and independent state ground that it was an allied offense of similar import to theft within the meaning of the Ohio rule that precludes prosecution for two such offenses.34 The Court’s cavalier disregard for the state-law basis for this aspect of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is totally unprecedented.35