Double Jeopardy – Multiple Convictions
Unless otherwise indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Benson, No. W2022-00703-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 23, 2023).
In determining whether multiple convictions under different statutes violate double jeopardy, we first look to legislative intent. Id. at 43-44. When the General Assembly expressly intended that multiple convictions be allowed, the multiple convictions should be upheld. Id. at 44. When the legislative intent is unclear, we look to whether the convictions arose from the same act or transaction. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 556-57. If the convictions did not arise from the same act or transaction, the inquiry ends and multiple convictions are permitted. Id. at 557. However, if the convictions arose from the same act or transaction, a double jeopardy violation may exist. State v. Itzol-Deleon, 537 S.W.3d 434, 441-42 (Tenn. 2017). The question then becomes “whether each offense includes an element that the other does not—if so, there is a presumption that the General Assembly intended to permit multiple punishments; if not, the presumption is that multiple punishments are not permitted.” State v. Feaster, 466 S.W.3d 80, 84 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 557).
“It is well settled in Tennessee that, under certain circumstances, two convictions or dual guilty verdicts must merge into a single conviction to avoid double jeopardy implications.” State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360, 362 (Tenn. 2015) (order). “Whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.” State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751, 766 (Tenn. 2014).
State v. Samson, No. M2022-00148-CCA-R3-CD, p. 39 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 3, 2023).
A claim that multiple convictions violate the protection against double jeopardy is a mixed question of law and fact, which this Court will review de novo without any presumption of correctness. State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751, 766 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tenn. 2009)).
State v. Green, No. M2021-01438-CCA-R3-CD, p. 27 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 28, 2023).
Whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy principles is a mixed question of law and fact that this court reviews de novo with no presumption of correctness. Smith, 436 S.W.3d at 766 (citing State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tenn. 2009)).
State v. Jones, No. W2022-00046-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 14, 2023).
“Whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.” State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751, 766 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tenn. 2009)).
State v. Slee, No. M2022-00120-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2023).
Whether multiple convictions violate the protection against double jeopardy is a mixed question of law and fact, which this Court will review de novo without any presumption of correctness. State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751, 766 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tenn. 2009)).
State v. Isaiah M., No. W2021-01133-COA-R3-JV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2022).
The issues for review on appeal involve double jeopardy principles. These are “question[s] of law with constitutional implications and, as such, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded to the determinations of the trial court.” State v. Houston, 328 S.W.3d 867, 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010); see State v. Davis, 266 S.W.3d 896, 901 (Tenn. 2008) (citing State v. Burns, 205 S.W.3d 412, 414 (Tenn. 2006)).
State of Tennessee v. Watson, No. W2021-00371-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb, 23, 2022).
“It is well settled in Tennessee that, under certain circumstances, two convictions or dual guilty verdicts must merge into a single conviction to avoid double jeopardy implications.” State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360, 362 (Tenn. 2015). “Whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.” State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751, 766 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tenn. 2009)).
Editor’s Note: this exact language was also used in State of Tennessee v. Reynolds, Alias, No. E2021-00066-CCA-R3-CD, p. 15 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 31, 2022).
