Rowland v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CA-00813-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-04-2012
Opinion Author: Randolph, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Double jeopardy - Identity of victims in indictment
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): King, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-26-2011
Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Ashley Hines
Disposition: Denied the Appellant's motion for post-conviction relief.
Case Number: 2007-0256

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Robert Rowland a/k/a Robert Stanley Rowland a/k/a Robert S. Rowland




OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Post-conviction relief - Double jeopardy - Identity of victims in indictment

Summary of the Facts: Robert Rowland pled guilty to two counts of capital murder and two counts of armed robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the two capital murder charges and twenty-four years for each of the two robbery charges. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, claiming that the trial court had placed him in double jeopardy by convicting him of capital murder and the underlying felony of armed robbery. The court dismissed the motion, finding it was time barred. Rowland appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that Rowland’s double-jeopardy claim was not subject to the procedural bars of the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. The Court remanded Rowland’s petition to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on his double-jeopardy claim. The circuit court on remand again denied Rowland’s petition for post-conviction relief. Rowland appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Rowland argues that the armed-robbery convictions violated his right against double jeopardy. The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. In considering whether a single act constitutes more than one offense, the court considers the charges as indicted, not the underlying facts. In this case, the capital-murder convictions required proof of additional elements that the armed-robbery convictions did not: the killings of Paul Hughes and James Campbell. The question then becomes whether Rowland’s armed-robbery convictions required proof of an additional element that the capital-murder convictions did not. Whether Rowland could have been convicted on an indictment charging capital murder based on the “armed robbery of . . . others” depends on whether the identity of the victim of an underlying armed robbery is an element of capital murder that must be stated in the capital-murder count and whether a capital-murder indictment based on armed robbery of “others” could have given Rowland fair and adequate notice of the crimes of which he was charged and sufficient facts to enable him to plead double jeopardy. The identity of the victim of the underlying felony is an element of the offense of capital murder that must be stated in the capital-murder indictment. Accordingly, Rowland could not have been convicted on an indictment of capital-murder based on the “armed robbery of . . . others”; his capital-murder convictions had to have been based on the armed robberies of the individuals named in the indictments: O.B. Singleton and Pat Bolton. Rowland was convicted of the indicted charges of capital murder for killing during the commission of the armed robberies of O.B. Singleton and Pat Bolton, and then separately for the armed robberies of O.B. Singleton and Pat Bolton, placing him in double jeopardy. The remedy for such a double-jeopardy violation is to vacate the armed-robbery convictions and sentences.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court