Legal Opinion

State v. Hardesty

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1996No. 63229-4PublishedCited by 88 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTalmadge, J.

— Herbert D. Hardesty (Hardesty) allegedly defrauded the trial court by failing to accurately relate his criminal history, thereby obtaining a more favorable sentence. He fully served the sentence, and now claims the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents his resentencing after the State brought the alleged fraud to the attention of the trial court. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding double jeopardy forbids the vacation of a "facially valid” sentence the defendant has fully served, even though the defendant procured the "facially valid”…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  5. United States v. DiFrancescoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by88 opinions

  1. State v. FordWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. BroadawayWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. BroadawayWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. HickmanWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. HickmanWashington Supreme Court · 1998

83 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