Demetrius Boyd v. Gary Boughton, 798 F.3d 490

Boyd was released on bond with a condition not to engage in criminal activity and was later arrested in Wisconsin on multiple substantive crimes (including armed robbery, felon in possession, and related counts).
Wisconsin charged Boyd with one bail-jumping count for each underlying substantive offense under Wis. Stat. § 946.49; a jury convicted Boyd on all twenty counts and he received a sentence of over 40 years.
Boyd exhausted state appeals (Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court denied relief), then filed a federal habeas petition claiming Double Jeopardy violation; the district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability on the double-jeopardy issue.
The core legal question is whether bail-jumping and the underlying substantive offenses constitute the "same offense" under the Double Jeopardy Clause, barring cumulative punishment.
Wisconsin appellate decisions (Nelson and Jacobus) treated bail-jumping and the underlying crimes as distinct offenses and concluded the legislature intended separate punishments for bond violations.
The federal habeas review is governed by AEDPA: petitioner must show the state-court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether bail-jumping and the underlying substantive offenses are the "same offense" for Double Jeopardy purposes	Boyd: The offenses are the same (lesser-included/incorporation approach); punishing both violates Double Jeopardy	State/Wisconsin courts: Bail-jumping punishes violation of a court order (distinct element); Dixon is fractured so no clearly established contrary federal law; legislature intended separate punishment	Court affirmed denial of habeas: state court decision not contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law; Jacobus/Dixon reasoning is permissible under AEDPA

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes the same-elements test for determining whether two offenses are the same)
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (plurality) (fractured treatment of lesser-included analysis; reinstated Blockburger over Grady)
Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (abandoned same-conduct test later overruled by Dixon)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (explains that in single proceedings courts should look to legislative intent when statutes fail Blockburger)
Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (lesser-included analysis where greater offense necessarily includes elements of the lesser)
Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (discusses Blockburger and statutory construction in multiple-punishment context)
Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (distinguishes successive proceedings prohibitions from single-proceeding cumulative punishments)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA standard on when a state-court decision is "contrary to" Supreme Court precedent)
Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1 (scope of habeas relief under §2254)