Southwell v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Branch, Judge.
On this pro se appeal from the denial of his motion to modify the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to robbery by intimidation and felony theft by taking, Joseph Southwell argues that his prosecution for the two crimes violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Georgia Constitutions and that the two crimes should have been merged for sentencing purposes. Southwell also argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this objection below. We find no error and affirm.
1. Southwell has raised what is known as a “substantive double jeopardy”…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Drinkard v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 2006
- Curtis v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2002
- Sims v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2007
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gipson v. the StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2015
- CUYLER v. the STATE.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2018
- Orengo v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2016
- Michael Orengo v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2016