*1 OHIO JOHNSON Argued April No. 83-904. 1984 Decided June *2 argued petitioner. Shoop him E. the cause for John With Joseph J. Hawkins M. on the briefs were Judson Gurley. by appointment L. Court,
Albert 465 U. Purola, argued respondent.* and filed a brief for cause opinion delivered of the Court. Rehnquist Justice Respondent Kenneth Johnson was indicted an Ohio grand jury ranging grand for four from murder to killing of theft, as a Thomas Hill and the theft result property apartment. Hill’s offered charges manslaughter plead guilty involuntary charges grand pleaded guilty to theft, but of murder and aggravated objection, robbery. Over the State’s trial accepted pleas “guilty” court to the lesser offenses, and granted respondent’s then motion dismiss the two most se- guilty pleas, rious that because of his further more serious offenses was barred prohibitions of the Fifth the double and Four- judgmént appeal teenth Amendments. This was affirmed on through granted courts, the Ohio state and we certiorari. We now reverse the prosecuting respondent hold Court Ohio and two more serious would constitute the type “multiple prosecution” prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Lee, Attorney Trott,
*Solicitor General Deputy Assistant General Solici- Frey, Phillips, tor General Carter G. аnd Kathleen A. Felton a brief filed urging amicus curiae United States as reversal. apartment city Thomas Hill was shot to death his city of Mentor-on-the-Lake, a northeast of Cleveland on Lake county grand jury Erie. later, Several weeks indicted murder,1 one count each of man- slaughter,2 aggravated robbery,3 theft.4 Mean-
1The elements of murder Ohio are: “(A) person purposely No shall cause the death another. “(B) murder, Whoever violates this pun- section and shall be provided ished section 2929.02 of the Revised Code.” Ohio Rev. §2903.02 Code Ann. The elements of the crime of are: “(A) person proximate No shall cause the death of another aas result committing attempting felony. of the offender’s to commit a *3 “(B) person proximate No cause the death of shall another as a result of committing attempting the offender’s commit or a misdemeanor. “(C) involuntary of guilty manslaughter. Whoever violates this section is (A) felony degree. Violation of of this a division section is of the first Vi- (B) felony degree.” olation of division of this is of the section a third Ohio (1982 1983). §2903.04 Supp. Rev. Code Ann. and statutory aggravated robbery The of Ohio elements of the crime are: “(A) рerson, attempting committing No a or theft offense as defined Code, immediately in fleeing section 2913.01 of the Revised or after such attempt offense, following: or shall do either of the “(1) deadly weapon dangerous Have a or ... or ordnance on about his person control; or under his “(2) Inflict, attempt physical or to inflict harm on serious another. “(B) guilty aggravated robbery, Whоever violates this section is of (1982 felony §2911.01 degree.” of the first Ohio Rev. Code Ann. and 1983). Supp. grand The crime theft in Ohio is defined as follows:
“(A) person, purpose deprive property No with or owner of serv- ices, knowingly shall obtain or exert control over either:
“(1) person give Without the consent of the owner or authorized to consent;
“(2) Beyond scope express implied оf the consent of the or or owner person give consent; authorized to “(3) deception; By
“(4) By threat.
“(B) property ... If the one hundred value services stolen is more, fifty any property property dollars or or if the stolen is of the listed Code, previously in section 2913.71 Revised or if the offender has offense, grand theft, been convicted of a theft of this section a violation arraignеd respondent had left and was while, Ohio killing. nearly years At his after the until two only plead guilty arraignment to the offered to grand while theft, and pleading guilty of murder offenses the more serious objection, aggravated robbery. State’s Over the respond- pleas accepted guilty trial court and sentenced App. imprisonment. ent to a term 19-21. remaining charges against him on
then moved to dismiss the would violate his that their further right the Fifth Amend- under the Clause of Double placed ment not to same offense. twice respondent’s granted The trial and dismissed court motion remaining charges, finding man- that because slaughter respectively, were, lesser included theft remaining charges aggravated offenses of of murder and robbery, offenses after continued acceptance pleas respondent’s the lesser offenses App. was barred Pet. for the Double Clause. Cert. A24. Appeals
The Ohio then Court of Court 3d affirmed the decision the trial court. Ohio St. 420, 453N. E. held 2d 595 Court aggravated robbery that in these circumstances “al *4 import” offens[e] lied theft, id., to at 453N. E. 422, of similar permitted 2d, at 598,5and reasoned that since state law con charges, only acceptance respond viction on one of these guilty plea prevented charge ent’s the of theft conviction to aggravated robbery. for the of involun The crime tary manslaughter distinguishable held to be from the (1982 felony § a of the degree.” fourth Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2913.02 and 1983). Supp. 5 term offense,” “allied interpreted has that crimes been to mean two share common elements such will that thе commission of one crime necessi 128, Logan, other. State 126, tate commission of the 60 Ohio St. 2d 397 (1979). 1345, E.N. 2d 1347
497 only by required offense of murder the mental states to com any killing, mit each in offense, but that one an offender could only involuntary manslaughter be convicted of or murder, but not both crimes.6
thinkWe the Court of Ohio was mistaken in its jeop- observation that “this case concerns the third double ardy рrotection prohibiting multiple punishments for the Id., same 421, offense.” at 453 2d, N. E. at 598.7 The Dou- 6 agree logical We with that interpretation the most of the holding below is that the court found to be a lesser offense opinion, included of murder. In one of the sentence how ever, mutually the mental states of the are two crimes considered exclu sive, suggest which would that conviction on onе is inconsistent with con 3d, 424, 2d, viction on the other. See 6 Ohio St. at 453 N. E. at 599. sentence, however, very the opinion next the states that the two offenses Blockburger test, e., are the under the i. same manslaughter is a lesser included offense of the crime interpretation of murder. This in opinion accords with the statement that the principles of collateral Swenson, estoppel applied in U. Ashe v. 397 S. 436 have no rele vance to this case. jurisdiction We face at the on threshold an attack our to review deci upon sion below. seizes the Ohio Court’s reference syllabus accompanying opinion argue to state in its law to that adequate independent ground. below decision rested state jurisdiction Ordinarily, judgment, we have a review state-court if the “appears law, primarily decision to rest on federal or interwoven with law,” independence any “adequacy possible federal if the state opinion.” Michigan Long, law is not clear face (1983). 1032, 463 U. S. 1040-1041 Here, syllabus presumption applied light must be rule of Supreme Court, provides ap- which holding that the of the case pears syllabus, only that is which portion opinion since majority agree. Donahey of the court must State ex rel. v. Edmond son, 93, Benguet Ohio St. 105 N. E. see also Perkins v. Con- Mining Co., solidated 441-442 But Ohio courts do suggest opinion germane interpreting that the is not court’s hold- Andrews, ing expressed syllabus. 218, 221, its Hart v. Ohio St. Indeed, grounds 132 N. E. where the decision are predicated law, clearly compelled felt on state we have examine the *5 opinion may below to determine whether the Ohio have Court a defendant three Clause, course, affords ble protections: basic against prosecution protects
'“[It] for the second against acquittal. protects It a sec- same offense after prosecution conviction. for the same offense after ond multiple protects against punishments it for the And Ohio, 161, same offense.’” Brоwn v. U. S. (1977),quoting North v. 395 U. Pearce, 711, Carolina explained the to occasions, As we have on numerous bar re- acquittal following trial or conviction ensures that the State repeated attempts to an individual, does not make convict thereby exposing anxiety, embarrassment, him to continued free, decisions, it differently ruled if “had under our do felt so.” Perkins, supra, at 443. syllabus
A review of the сourt’s indicates that the court did not articulate independent ground part for the The first state-law decision. the syllabus determining that, to state law in as allied refers may only aggravated robbery State convictions on either obtain theft, why may syllabus explain but not But the both. does press respondent aggra- not continue to for forward with its robbery, multiple vated since the multicount statute that bars convictions plainly may pros- possibility allied offenses admits to the that the State single prosecution. ecute allied offenses in a Ohio Rev. Ann. Code. (1982 1983). opinion §2941.25 Supp. accompanying A at look syllabus, however, writing opinion the judge shows that believed remaining charges that continued was proscribed protection against multiple punish- jeopardy double 3d, 2d, at mеnts. 6 Ohio St. 453 N. E. at 597. The federal affirming the the murder for the court’s decision dismissal of discern, syllabus directly much easier to since the text of the court’s refers against jeopardy. Although double the court’s reference prohibition version, might arguably Const., see Ohio jeopardy be to Ohio double I, clearly pro- § Art. indicate that state double the failure to invoked, coupled opinion with the references in being tection when Pearce, in North Carolina to our decisions Swenson, supra, Ashe us that convinces Court based its interpretation decision on of the Double the Fifth its applied Amendment the Fourteenth States Amendment.
499 expense, increasing while the risk of an erroneous con- impermissibly g., or viction enhanced sentence. e. See, (1975); United States v. 420 Wilson, 332, U. S. 343 v. Greеn States, United U. 355 S. 184, 187-188 jeopardy protection against In contrast to the double multi- ple component jeopardy protection trials, final of double — punishments against designed cumulative to ensure that —is courts is sentencing discretion confined the limits es- legislature. power tablished Because substantive prescribe punishments crimes and determine is vested legislature, Wiltberger, with the United States v. 5 Wheat. (1820), question 76, 93 under the Double punishments “multiple” essentially whether are is one legislative see v. intent, Missouri 459 U. Hunter, 359, (1983).8 following 366-368 But where a defendant is retried protection the Clause’s conviction, third ensures that after subsequent a conviction a defendant receives credit for time already supra, North Pearce, served. Carolina v. at 718. accept, must,
We as we the Ohiо deter- Court’s Legislature mination that the not intend cumulative did punishment pairs here. But for the two crimes involved punished respondent can the offenses of before ever be aggravated robbery he will first have to be found murder and guilty offenses. The trial court’s dismissal these those simply prevent impo- more more did than serious punishments; completely of cumulative it halted sition ultimately proceedings would have led to a verdict of 8 Blockburger courts the test v. United the federal established States, 299, ordinarily 284 U. S. determines whether the crimes separate punishments may imposed. and whether cumulative be indeed are States, United Whalen v. Albemaz United States, As should evident from our decision U. S. Hunter, however, Blockburger in Missouri necessarily test does not legislature. into the intent of a state Even if the inquiry control Blockburger, legis if are the same under it is evident that a state crimes punishments, inquiry a court’s lature intended authorize cumulative at an end.
guilt charges. on these more innocence serious Presum- ably court, the trial in the event of verdict on the question of more serious will have to confront the punishments as but because law, cumulative a matter statе ruling preventing of that court’s even the of the more trial *7 stage of never serious that the was may protect Jeopardy reached. While the Double Clause against punishments on defendant cumulative for convictions prohibit from the same the the offense, Clause does single prosecuting respondent multiple in a such offenses prosecution.
Respondent urges, affirming as alternative basis for pros further Ohio, Court of ecution the counts which were violate dismissed would jeopardy prohibition against multiple prosecutions. double Respondent au Brief for 17-18. He concedes that thority supra, State is our decision Brown v. Ohio, prohibited charging by Double Clause greater and with offenses and lesser included prosecuting single for Re those offenses in а Brief trial. spondent argues, on But, 7. he his conviction sentence and charges theft remaining will mean that further implicate on offenses jeopardy protection against a second the double prosecution following never had conviction. The court below argument.9 occasion to address this us. Re- The answer to this contention obvious seems spondent growing charges out of on related indicted four remaining charges is argues that prosecution also this Court principles estoppel barred of collateral enunciated Swenson, Ashe v. mutually were if the two Even crimes, plea is not supra, the same taking exclusive see n. of a in Ashe trial, place took adjudication as an on the merits after full such Moreover, this, has Swenson. wherе the State made in a case such as seriatim, no the considerations of prosecute effort double jeopardy protection implicit application estoppel of collateral are inapplicable. robbery. grand jury single
a murder and returned a in- single dictment, all four were embraced within a prosecution. Respondent’s argument appаrently based on assumption proceedings, that trial like amoebae, are ca- pable being infinitely subdivided, so that a determination guilt punishment one count of a multicount indict- immediately ment prosecution raises bar .a double to continued any remaining greater counts that are charge just lesser included offenses of the concluded. We have never that, held and decline to hold it now.
Previously recognized we have that the Double prohibits prosecution aof defendant for a of- already acquitted he fense when has tried and or con- been victed on the Ohio, lesser included offense. Brown charged U. S. 161 Brown the State first “joyriding,” operating defendant with that is, an auto without pleaded guilty the owner’s consent. The defendant to this *8 Subsequently, and wаs sentenced. indicted State joyriding, charges the defendant for auto theft and which by Jeopardy Clause, this Court held were barred the Double sepa- previously in a since defendant had been convicted proceeding joyriding, rate of which included was a lesser supra, of 169. Ohio, offense auto theft. Brown v. at principles do not of final- believe, however, We that the overreaching ity prevention prosecutorial applied of protected respondent Brown reach this case. No interest of implicated continuing the Double Clause is prosecution charges brought remaining on the the indict- only respondent part ment. to resolve Here offered of objected charges against disposing him, while the to State any against resрondent of the counts without a trial. Re- exposed spondent charges has not been to conviction on the pleaded guilty, nor to he has the which had the State opportunity to marshal its evidence more than resources presentation through its once or to hone its case a trial. acceptance guilty plea of a to lesser included offenses grеater pending, while offenses remain more- 502 implications “implied acquittal” of an
over, has none of convicting from a a defendant lesser results verdict which jury charged by a to consider both included offenses rendered Georgia, Price v. lesser included offenses. Cf. S., v. United States, U. 329 Green governmental simply has There been none of at 191. overreaching supposed prevent. jeopardy is that double ending deny would hand, the other now On opportunity right fair those to one full and convict State its Washington, have violated its laws. Arizona who U. think this is an even clearer case than United We Jeffers rejected a where we defendant’s
States, U. S. upon a claim of double based verdict prosecutions, first of two successive when the defendant had insisting sepаrate responsible for that there rather been respondent’s than consolidated trials. Here efforts were separate disposition counts in the directed same indict- charged no more than trial of the ment where one offenses Notwithstanding contemplated. the trial court’s was ever pleas, acceptance respondent’s guilty respondent should use as a not be entitled to the Double sword prevent completing its remaining charges. foregoing Jeop-
For the reasons we hold that the Double ardy prohibit continuing Clause does not the State from its prosecution murder and aggravated robbery.10 Accordingly, Supreme Court is and the reversed, case remanded *9 proceedings opinion. further not inconsistent with this
It is so ordered. in We see no need to address the manner which the trial court should question pleas proceeds trial, resolve the the existing guilty of if the ease the issue appearing jurisdiction involve construction of state law appropriate of Ohio courts to fashion relief. Ohio Rule Crim. Proc. Georgia, 32.1 cf. Price v. 398 U. S. concurring part dissenting Justice Brennan, part. my judgment Supreme view, of the Ohio Court with
respect aggravated robbery chаrge independ- rests on adequate grounds. agree I ent and state with the Court, that continued of however, charge respondent pleaded guilty after of murder to the charge manslaughter was not barred Double Clause. joins, Stevens,
Justice with whom Justice Marshall dissenting. plea legal
A conviction on a based has the same jury’s effect as a conviction based on a verdict. Thе con place viction in this respondent case authorized State of Ohio to prison years. for several As the ex-. Court pressly recognizes, prohibits “the Double of a defendant for a offense when he has already . . been . convicted on the lesser included offense.” precisely.
Ante, at 501. That statement fits this case Since judg it is a correct I affirm the law, statement wоuld Supreme ment Court Ohio insofar as it denied the right prosecute respondent charge State the murder.* concerned, aggravated robbery
*As far perfectly as the it is judgment obvious that the of the Ohio Court rests on the ade- quate independent state that it an “allied offense of similar import” meaning precludes to theft within pros- of the Ohio rule that ecution for such disregard two offenses. The Court’s cavalier for the aspect state-law basis for this Court of totally unprecedented. Ohio is