holding that “the proper remedy is to vacate both the conviction and sentence on the included offense, leaving the conviction and sentence on the greater offense intact” (citations omitted and emphasis in original)
How later courts described this case
- holding that “the proper remedy is to vacate both the conviction and sentence on the included offense, leaving the conviction and sentence on the greater offense intact” (citations omitted and emphasis in original)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
POFF, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority.
The defendant was convicted under the malicious wounding indictment of the lesser-included offense of unlawful wounding. As *117 sault and battery is a lesser-included offense of unlawful wounding. As the majority opinion demonstrates, the convictions for unlawful wounding and assault and battery were based upon the same evidence of the same conduct. Conviction of two offenses, one of which is lesser-included in the other, offends the double jeopardy guarantee. In such case, the constitution requires that the conviction of the lesser offense and the sentence imposed upon that conviction be vacated.
This rationale may be implicit in the majority opinion. I believe it should be explicit.