Johnson v. Young, No. 14-1922 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseJohnson shot his ex-girlfriend in the head, causing serious permanent injuries. A South Dakota jury convicted him of first-degree attempted murder and aggravated assault. The trial judge imposed consecutive sentences of 25 and 15 years for the two offenses. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota rejected Johnson’s claim that imposing consecutive sentences for attempted murder and aggravated assault based on the same act violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. After exhausting state post-conviction remedies, Johnson sought a federal writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the double jeopardy claim as no “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. 2254(d).
Court Description: Prisoner case - Habeas. The South Dakota Supreme Court's conclusion that imposing consecutive sentences for attempted murder and aggravated assault based on the same act did not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy was based on the Court's finding that the legislature's intent was to impose multiple punishments, and this court is bound by the South Dakota Supreme Court's determination of state law; having determined legislative intent as a matter of state law, the South Dakota Supreme Court was not constituionally obligated to apply the rule of lenity to reach a contrary conclusion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.