Double Jeopardy Claim Deemed Waived as a Matter of State Law.

State v. Jeffries, Minn.Ct.App., 8/31/10.  The state charged Mr. Jeffries with felony domestic assault, then gave notice of its intent to seek to impose upon him an upward sentencing departure for being a career offender.  Mr. Jeffries then decided to plead guilty under a deal that called for an upward, but stayed sentencing departure.  The trial court not only accepted the plea, it pronounced Mr. Jefferies “convicted of that.”

And then changed his mind.  Mr. Jeffries showed up for sentencing, only to hear the judge say that he was rejecting the plea agreement.  The judge, trying to be magnanimous, said to Mr. Jeffries “I’m giving you your pleas back.  So you’re not guilty.”  Mr. Jefferies then renegotiated a guilty plea, one that sent him to prison for five years. 

Feeling like something was just not right, Mr. Jeffries appealed.  On appeal, Mr. Jeffries argued that by accepting his first guilty plea jeopardy attached so that the second plea was a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy.  The appellate court wanders around in the desert for a while on whether this could possibly be the law, generally going in the direction that it wasn’t.  Fortunately, there was an easier out:  defense counsel never raised the double jeopardy claim, so it’s waived.

But, hold on.  Didn’t the Minnesota Supreme Court, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court, say that a guilty plea, by itself, does not waive a claim of double jeopardy that can be “judged on its face”?  Yes, it did.  State v. Jenson, 312 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. 1981).  But, then there’s Danforth v. Minnesota, 128 S.Ct. 1029 (2008), which says that answers to some seemingly federal questions are not binding on the states after all.  Looking at state law, double jeopardy is an affirmative defense.  Minn.R.Crim.P. 14.01(d).  Mr. Jeffries said nothing to the trial court about double jeopardy so his second guilty plea waived that claim.

Mr. Jeffries has petitioned for further review.