State v. Gardner, 442 P.3d 1262

Gardner was charged in district court with felony burglary and felony theft; he pleaded guilty to both pursuant to a plea agreement and the court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence report.
About two weeks later, Gardner appeared unrepresented in South Salt Lake Justice Court on misdemeanor theft and criminal mischief arising from the same episode; he pleaded guilty and was sentenced (restitution paid; jail suspended).
After the justice-court disposition, Gardner moved in district court to withdraw his district-court guilty plea to theft, asserting double jeopardy and arguing he would not have pleaded twice to the same offense.
The State opposed withdrawal, and the district court denied the motion under Utah Code § 77-13-6, finding Gardner’s district-court plea was knowing and voluntary and that jeopardy first attached in district court.
The district court sentenced Gardner to concurrent zero-to-five-year terms; Gardner appealed the denial of his plea-withdrawal motion and argued double jeopardy barred the district-court sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying Gardner’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to theft	Gardner: his later justice-court conviction and sentence for the same conduct completed jeopardy there, so the district-court punishment would violate double jeopardy; he would not have pleaded twice	State/District Court: Gardner’s district-court plea was knowing and voluntary; jeopardy attached when the district court accepted the plea, so double jeopardy does not bar sentencing there	Court: Denial affirmed — plea withdrawal properly denied and double jeopardy does not bar district-court sentencing because jeopardy attached first in district court

State v. Horrocks, 17 P.3d 1145 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (jeopardy attaches when a court accepts a guilty plea)
State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294 (Utah 1986) (recognizing entry of plea as critical moment for jeopardy)
Bernat v. Allphin, 106 P.3d 707 (Utah 2005) (double jeopardy protections described)
State v. Robertson, 438 P.3d 491 (Utah 2017) (double jeopardy inquiry depends on whether prosecutions/punishments are for the same offense)
United States v. Idowu, 74 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 1996) (rejecting argument that completion of punishment in a later proceeding bars earlier sentencing where jeopardy first attached earlier)
United States v. Pierce, 60 F.3d 886 (1st Cir. 1995) (discussing timing of jeopardy in successive-punishment contexts)
Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1984) (double jeopardy’s primary purpose is to prevent multiple punishments)