State v. Pruiett
324 Ga. App. 789
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On July 30, 2010, Trion police found one-milligram Xanax pills in Debra Pruiett’s car; she was arrested and said she had more Xanax at home.
- A county narcotics investigator obtained a search warrant for Pruiett’s home and found two-milligram alprazolam tablets, clonazepam, methamphetamine residue, and marijuana; her live-in companion was arrested.
- Pruiett was first charged and pled guilty (Feb. 14, 2011) to possession of alprazolam (Xanax) based on July 30, 2010.[note: transcript of that plea hearing is not in the record]
- About two weeks after her plea, a second accusation charged Pruiett with possession of methamphetamine, alprazolam, clonazepam, and marijuana dated July 30, 2010.
- Pruiett filed a double jeopardy plea in bar seeking dismissal of all counts in the second accusation; the trial court granted the plea. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pruiett) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second prosecution for Xanax found at home is barred by substantive double jeopardy (OCGA §§ 16-1-7(a), 16-1-8(a)) | Same-day discovery of Xanax at home and in car arises from same conduct; prosecution barred | The house Xanax arose from different conduct/time/location than car Xanax; not same conduct | Denied: substantive double jeopardy did not bar prosecution (different conduct/transaction) |
| Whether second prosecution for Xanax is barred by procedural double jeopardy (OCGA § 16-1-8(b)) | Second identical charge repeats an offense to which she already pled guilty; prosecution barred | State contends separate factual bases permit second charge | Granted: procedural double jeopardy bars reprosecution for Xanax found at home because second accusation duplicates the crime of which she was already convicted |
| Whether prosecutions for methamphetamine, clonazepam, marijuana at home are barred by substantive double jeopardy | These charges arise from same overall course of events on same day; barred | Different times, locations, and evidentiary facts; not same conduct | Denied: substantive double jeopardy does not bar these charges (different conduct/transaction) |
| Whether prosecutions for the three other drugs are barred by procedural double jeopardy (OCGA § 16-1-8(b)) | State could/should have charged these in the first prosecution; barred | First prosecution involved only Xanax in car; convictions for other drugs were not possible on that charge; separate prosecution permitted | Denied: procedural bar does not apply because defendant could not have been convicted of those other drug offenses in the first prosecution and the offenses did not arise from the same conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Etienne v. State, 298 Ga. App. 149 (review standard for double jeopardy pleas)
- McCannon v. State, 252 Ga. 515 (OCGA § 16-1-8(b) is res judicata–type protection; plea of guilty constitutes jeopardy)
- Poole v. State, 175 Ga. App. 374 (different times/locations on same date can be different conduct)
- Teal v. State, 203 Ga. App. 440 (substantive double jeopardy bars convictions arising from same conduct)
- Neslein v. State, 288 Ga. App. 234 (guilty plea admits facts in the accusation)
- Nicely v. State, 305 Ga. App. 387 (double jeopardy analysis when offenses arise from same conduct)
- Summers v. State, 263 Ga. App. 338 (actual knowledge of other crimes by prosecutor insufficient when offenses do not arise from same conduct)