Hollins v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. State

    2010 Ark. App. 224 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Distinguishing Brown and Hollins and finding that double-jeopardy argument was preserved where it was made during jury deliberations and before conviction, but this was only upon trial court's request

    We hold that these facts are distinguishable from those in Brown and that Brown does not bar Lee's appeal. Accordingly, we hold that Lee's double-jeopardy argument is preserved. In addition to Brown, the State also relies upon Hollins v. State, 80 Ark. App. 342, 96 S.W.3d 755 (2003). However, for the same reasons that Brown is distinguishable from the instant case, Hollins is likewise distinguishable.

  2. Sheppard v. State

    2014 Ark. App. 206 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014)

    Thus, it is clear that appellant failed to preserve his double-jeopardy argument for appellate review because he failed to raise this argument after the jury had returned its guilty verdicts.See also Hollins v. State, 80 Ark. App. 342, 96 S.W.3d 755 (2003) (holding that the appellant's argument that the trial court should have dismissed three of the four counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle because they were part of a continuing course of conduct, which was raised before trial but not after his conviction on the four counts, was premature and was not preserved for appellate review); Scott v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 296 (holding that because appellants had not made their double-jeopardy argument after they were actually convicted of both charges, they waived it on appeal). Appellant notes that Brown limited his double-jeopardy argument to the offenses as charged but was convicted of a lesser-included offense, which he failed to address in his motions for directed verdict.

  3. Scott v. State

    2011 Ark. App. 296 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that because appellants had not made their double-jeopardy argument after they were actually convicted of both charges, they waived it on appeal

    In Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308, 317, 65 S.W.3d 394, 400 (2001), our supreme court held that a defendant "cannot object to a double jeopardy violation until he has actually been convicted of the multiple offenses, because it is not a violation of double jeopardy under ยง 5-1-110(a)(1) for the State to charge and prosecute on multiple and overlapping charges." Because the defendant in Brown moved for relief during his directed-verdict motion before he was actually convicted of any offense, and failed to object after he was convicted of both charges by the jury, the court held that he waived his double-jeopardy argument for purposes of appeal. Id.; see also Hollins v. State, 80 Ark. App. 342, 96 S.W.3d 755 (2003) (barring double-jeopardy claim not made following defendant's conviction on the disputed counts); cf. Lee v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 224 (distinguishing Brown and Hollins and finding that double-jeopardy argument was preserved where it was made during jury deliberations and before conviction, but this was only upon trial court's request). In this case, appellants made their double-jeopardy argument in a motion to dismiss prior to the trial and again prior to the jury receiving its instructions.