State v. Corbus
151 Idaho 368
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Corbus was charged in a single information with reckless driving (misdemeanor) and felony eluding a police officer (felony).
- At arraignment he pled guilty to reckless driving but the eluding charge remained pending.
- Corbus moved to dismiss eluding as a double jeopardy violation since reckless driving was allegedly a lesser included offense.
- The district court denied the motion; Corbus then pled guilty to eluding but reserved appeal on the motion to dismiss.
- The district court sentenced: five years unified for eluding with a 1.5-year minimum, plus 120 days for reckless driving; sentences were suspended and he was placed on probation.
- Corbus appeals the denial of the motion to dismiss and challenges multiple prosecutions and multiple convictions/punishments under both constitutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple prosecutions violated double jeopardy | Corbus contends recklessness is lesser included, making prosecutions duplicative. | State could charge and prosecute greater and lesser offenses together. | No US double jeopardy violation; concurrent prosecutions proper. |
| Whether multiple convictions and punishments violated the US Constitution | Two offenses constitute one for double jeopardy under Blockburger; convictions/punishments improper. | Two offenses have separate elements; conviction and punishment for both permissible. | No violation under Blockburger; convictions/punishments for two offenses upheld. |
| Whether Corbus's Idaho Constitution double jeopardy claim raised fundamental error | Idaho claim should be reviewed under Perry for fundamental error. | Precedent is unsettled on whether Blockburger or pleading theory applies; error not plain. | Did not establish fundamental error under Perry; Idaho claim not afforded relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977) (conviction and punishment for two offenses requires additional elements)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1932) (each offense must require proof of an element the other does not)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (prosecution of greater and lesser offenses in one proceeding allowed)
- State v. Stewart, 149 Idaho 383 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2010) (analysis of Idaho double jeopardy often aligns with Blockburger)
- State v. Sivak, 112 Idaho 197 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1986) (pleading theory used to assess lesser included offenses (Idaho))
- State v. Pizzuto, 119 Idaho 742 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1991) (lesser included offenses under double jeopardy analysis (Idaho))
- State v. Thompson, 101 Idaho 430 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1980) (pleading theory for Idaho constitutional claims)
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2010) (defines fundamental error for unobjected-to claims under Perry)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993) (plain error standard; 'clear under current law')