Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Collier v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 31, 1999No. 49A04-9808-PC-410Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBailey, Judge

I concur as to Issues 2 and 3, and respectfully dissent as to Issue 1. The post-conviction court did not commit error in its reliance upon Fields v. State, 676 N.E.2d 27 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). The post-conviction court properly analyzed Collier’s federal and state double jeopardy claims.

A. Double Jeopardy Under the United States Constitution

In Fields, we applied what was then a two-step double jeopardy test; first, we determined whether the defendant’s conduct violated two distinct statutory provisions which do not require proof of an additional fact, then finding no double jeopardy violation…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Games v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Games v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Grinstead v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Fields v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. Long v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API