Skip to main content

Storey v. State

Citations

  • 875 N.E.2d 243
  • 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 2365
  • 2007 WL 3053264

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that convictions for manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine did not violate double jeopardy prohibition where “the State sufficiently distinguished the possession offense from the manufacturing offense and provided independent evidence to support both convictions”
  • holding that the State “set forth independent evidence” that the defendant committed the offenses of possession of methamphetamine in excess of three (3) grams with intent to deliver and manufacturing methamphetamine in excess of three (3
  • noting that “[b]ecause Storey committed his offenses on July 23, 2003, he was sentenced under Indiana’s former presumptive sentencing scheme” and that [t]hus, Anglemyer is not applicable to this case”
  • addressing whether the State sufficiently distinguished between the facts underlying convictions for manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine
  • the State “carefully parsed the evidence at trial” to support convictions for both possession and manufacturing of methamphetamine
  • companion case finding no double jeopardy violation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Yaidik, Baker, Bailey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.