Double jeopardy question?

When does Double Jeopardy actually apply to a case? I know that you can not be charge for the same crime twice, but would if you were charged went through the motions of trial the charges were little by little dropped down from the higher crime to a misdeameanor that was elevated to a felony becouse of an enhancement convicted of that lesser crime and then recharged years later for the higher crime? Does Double Jeopardy apply to this also what about the lesser included offense doctrine? Does Collaterall Estoppel apply to this case? If anyone could give me any suggestions on what to do I know this is not right what the DA is doing but Im not sure how to go about things. The Court appointed attorney is not returning any calls.

Call every hour till they do call you back and/or get private counsel as well. It is a tricky area sometimes but you cannot face exactly the same charges twice.

Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.

More recently, in U.S. v. Dixon, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 (1993), the Court clarified the use of the 'same elements test' set forth in Blockburger when it over-ruled the 'same conduct' test announced in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions only when the previously concluded and subsequently charged offenses fail the 'same elements' test articulated in Blockburger. See also Gavieres v. U.S., 220 U.S. 338, 345 (1911) (early precedent establishing that in a subsequent prosecution '[w]hile it is true that the conduct of the accused was one and the same, two offenses resulted, each of which had an element not embraced in the other').

Thank You
I was wondering if Collaterall Estoppel would apply to this case the person was charged and then by amended complaints thruout trial the charges were dropped down and the he was convicted at the end of a lesser charge.

First developed in civil litigation, the doctrine was applied in a criminal case in United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 (1916).'''Collateral estoppel' is an awkward phrase . . . [which] means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.'' Id. at 443.

In California, there are four criteria for application of collateral estoppel:
(1) the prior conviction must have been for a serious offense so that the defendant was motivated to fully litigate the charges;
(2) there must have been a full and fair trial to prevent convictions of doubtful validity from being used;
(3) the issue on which the prior conviction is offered must of necessity have been decided at the criminal trial
(4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior trial .

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me you really need to have expert counsel if you are gettig into this level of legal argument. Or at least get the public defender to help you.

Does anyone know about lesser included offense doctrine regarding double Jeopardy. Still not able to get in touch with the court appointed attorney.

1492. See Payne v. Virginia, 468 U.S. 1062 (1984) (per curiam) (double jeopardy bars subsequent prosecution for lesser offense following conviction of greater offense when court cannot convict of greater without also convicting of lesser); Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 420-21 (1980) (case remanded to determine whether separate conviction for failure to reduce speed was lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter and thus barred trial for latter); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169-70 (1977) (conviction for auto theft reversed because barred by defendant's guilty plea and sentence for lesser included-offense of joyriding).

The Fifth Circuit has held that a conviction for a lesser offense that is subsequently set aside on appeal does not prevent prosecution of a greater charge not considered at the first trial. Lowery v. Estelle, 696 F.2d 333, 341-42 (Sth Cir. 1983).

Thank You