U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Judicial Sentencing Error: Thomas v. Morris and the Double Jeopardy Clause

NCJ Number
123241
Journal
Pepperdine Law Review Volume: 16 Issue: 3 Dated: (1989) Pages: 613-631
Author(s)
P G Flynn
Date Published
1989
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This article traces the appeal in Thomas v. Morris, which involves a double jeopardy issue of multiple punishments for the same offense, and critiques the Eighth Circuit's decision in the case.
Abstract
The trial court convicted Thomas of both felony murder in the first degree and of attempted robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for the latter offense and life imprisonment for the former offense. The terms were to run consecutively, with the 15-year sentence to run first. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, with the only issue before it being the voluntariness of the confession. Thomas collaterally attacked the judgment by filing a motion for postconviction relief. In June 1982, following a hearing on Thomas's motion, amended in March 1981 to include the double jeopardy claim, the trial court vacated Thomas's conviction for attempted robbery in the first degree, holding that convicting the defendant for both attempted robbery and felony murder violated the double jeopardy clause. The issue then became this: if a defendant satisfies a sentence prior to subsequent vacation of the sentence as illegally imposed, does continuing confinement under a life sentence for a felony murder conviction violate the double jeopardy clause. The Eighth Circuit, en banc, held that it did. Four judges dissented from what they viewed as a decision contrary to the legislatures' and trial court's intent, i.e., to sentence Thomas to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. In consenting to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court should distinguish or overrule in opposite precedent so that sound logic and the intent of the legislature and sentencing judge in meting out punishment for crime will not be defied. 150 footnotes.

Downloads

No download available

Availability