Swafford v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “similar statutory provisions sharing certain elements may support separate convictions and punishments where examination of the facts presented at trial establish that the jury reasonably could have inferred independent factual bases for the charged offenses”
• stating that if the conduct is found to be non-unitary, \inquiry is at an end\
• stating that the two-part test is used for the purpose of “determining legislative intent to punish”
• holding that a sentence 3 may not be enhanced if the enhancement is based on the “elements of either the 4 offense for which the defendant was sentenced or a separate, but contemporaneous, 5 conviction”
• stating that a double jeopardy multiple punishment inquiry ends when conduct is “separate and distinct”
• indicating that the presumption can be rebutted by looking at the “language, history and subject of the statutes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).