Dodge v. Robinson
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22665
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Dodge was convicted in Iowa of manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture; sentences 20 and 15 years, consecutive.
- At sentencing, Dodge did not object to cumulative punishment, and conviction pleaded no objection.
- On direct appeal, Dodge argued merger under Iowa Code §701.9 and Double Jeopardy; Iowa courts held two offenses had distinct elements and allowed cumulative punishment.
- Dodge pursued post-conviction relief; Iowa district court and Court of Appeals reaffirmed no double-jeopardy violation; Iowa Supreme Court denied further review.
- Dodge filed §2254 petition; district court granted relief, ruling cumulative punishment violated Double Jeopardy; State appealed.
- Eighth Circuit reversed, holding state-law interpretation binding under AEDPA and that no constitutional double-jeopardy violation occurred; thus no ineffective-assistance relief for failure to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cumulative punishment for two offenses violates Double Jeopardy | Dodge argues legislature did not intend cumulative punishment. | State argues legislature did intend cumulative punishment for the two offenses. | No double-jeopardy violation; Iowa legislature intended cumulative punishment. |
| Whether the district court correctly treated freestanding double-jeopardy claim as ineffective assistance | Dodge's freestanding claim should survive as constitutional issue, not mere trial-law claim. | State contends district court properly treated as meritless ineffective-assistance for failure to object. | District court erred; court nonetheless finds no merit to relief on either basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983) (dual purposes of double jeopardy: legislative intent governs cumulative punishment)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981) (legislative intent governs permissible punishments; Blockburger is a tool of construction)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for whether two offenses are separate)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (accepts state court's determination of legislative intent not to impose cumulative punishment)
- Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376 (1989) (clarifies limits of Blockburger as a tool, not a state-law binding on legislative intent)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal review of state-law questions; AEDPA deference)
- Bally v. Kemna, 65 F.3d 104 (8th Cir. 1995) (double-jeopardy protections distinguished from successive-prosecution protections)