Boyd v. Boughton

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged on double jeopardy grounds defendant’s convictions on 10 counts of bail jumping, where defendant was also convicted in same trial on 10 underlying substantive offenses that served as basis for finding that defendant had violated terms of his bail. While defendant argued that his bail jumping and underlying offenses constituted same offenses under Double Jeopardy Clause, defendant failed to show that Wisc. court’s determination that bail jumping and conduct underlying bail jumping charge were distinct and separate charges \was contrary to any well-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Moreover, even if both bail jumping and underlying offense proscribed same conduct, Double Jeopardy Clause would not prevent cumulative punishments in instant single trial setting, where Wisc. court found that Wisc. legislature intended for bail jumping statute to punish defendant separately from any underlying offense.