On direct appeal, we concluded that the two statutory aggravating circumstances, the murders of the two women, were mutually supporting, vacated the death penalty for the murder of his wife Mildred Godfrey, and affirmed the sentence of death for the murder of Chessie Wilkerson, his mother-in-law. Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616 ( 284 S.E.2d 422) (1981). Godfrey then filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied.

Redd did not contend that the state could not reseek the death penalty, for Bullington clearly allows for it where a death penalty which is first imposed is set aside on legal grounds. See, Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616 (1) ( 284 S.E.2d 422) (1981). Neither did Redd complain of the submission to the second sentencing jury of the one aggravating circumstance found by the first jury or of the one not submitted to that jury.

The Georgia trial court again sentenced Godfrey to death, and the Georgia Supreme Court again affirmed. Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616, 284 S.E.2d 422 (1981). The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider Godfrey's case again.

However, this argument has been decided adversely to the defendant by the United States Supreme Court in Poland v. Arizona, supra, as well as by this court in Zant v. Redd, supra. See also Page v. State, 257 Ga. 538 ( 361 S.E.2d 153) (1987); Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616, 618 ( 284 S.E.2d 422) (1981). It is uncontroverted that the jury found an aggravating circumstance and returned a verdict in favor of the death penalty.

As pointed out in Zant v. Redd, supra, 249 Ga. at p. 212, "Redd did not contend that the state could not reseek the death penalty, for Bullington clearly allows for it where a death penalty which is first imposed is set aside on legal grounds. See Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616 (1) ( 284 S.E.2d 422) (1981). Neither did Redd complain of the submission to the second sentencing jury of the one aggravating circumstance found by the first jury or of the one not submitted to that jury.

Thus, I am forced to conclude that Young cannot be resentenced to death. Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616, 625 (dissenting opinion by Hill, P. J.) ( 284 S.E.2d 422) (1981), cert. denied 456 U.S. 919 (1982).

While the applicable Code sections "extend the proscription of double jeopardy beyond those constitutional limits," by their language, they apply only to criminal proceedings, not to civil proceedings. State v. Martin, 173 Ga. App. 370, 3701 ( 326 S.E.2d 558) (1985); OCGA §§ 16-1-6, 16-1-7, 16-1-8; see Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616, 619 ( 284 S.E.2d 422) (1981). Moreover, these sections, too, are triggered only after jeopardy attaches.

See State v. Pina, 440 A.2d 962, 965 66 (Conn. 1981) (holding that where the sentence imposed did not make the statutorily required indication of whether the terms shall run concurrently or consecutively, the sentence may be corrected without imposing double jeopardy); Godfrey v. State, 248 Ga. 616, 284 S.E.2d 422, 425-26 (1981) (holding that where the Supreme Court had reversed defendant's death penalty sentence on the grounds it was a standardless and unchannelled imposition, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude reimposition of death penalty on remand because the reversal was for trial error, not insufficiency of the evidence); and People v. Maldonado, 82 A.D.2d 576, 442 N.Y.S.2d 567 (N Y App. Div. 1981) (distinguishing Bullington on the grounds it was a capital case in which a trial was held on the issue of punishment, and on the grounds that the present case involved trial error rather than insufficiency of the evidence) See also Fitzpatrick v. State, 638 P.2d 1002 (Mont. 1981) (holding that because Montana's sentencing proceeding does not resemble a trial, Bullington does not preclude an imposition of the death penalty on retrial, even though the judge in the first trial refused to impose that penalty).