Ronnie Lee Launius, Carroll Evan Sherrill, Paul Junior Ballard v. United States

In 1974 appellants Launius, Sherrill and Ballard pleaded guilty to two counts of an information charging a single offense. They received consecutive sentences on the two counts exceeding the statutory maximum for the single offense charged in the information. Two years later appellants filed motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging their sentences. The district court agreed that the information was multipli-cious and that the consecutive sentences violated the double jeopardy clause. Relief was denied, however, on the ground that appellants had waived their double jeopardy claims by pleading guilty.

The district court’s conclusion that the consecutive sentences constituted double jeopardy was correct. Appellants pleaded guilty to an information charging conspiracy to smuggle heroin and conspiracy to smuggle amphetamines. It appeared on the face of the indictment that but one agreement was involved and hence but one conspiracy. “The one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and hence several conspiracies because it envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one.” Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53 , 63 S.Ct. 99, 102 , 87 L.Ed. 23 (1953). The…