Jaramillo v. State

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of a habitual offender enhancement after the enhancement was reversed on appeal for insufficient evidence. Relying on Monge v. California, the court concluded that Monge remains good law and permits reprosecution of the enhancement, while summarily affirming other uncontested portions of the Court of Appeals' decision.

Holdings

1. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent the State from reprosecuting a habitual offender enhancement after the enhancement has been reversed on appeal for insufficient evidence.
2. The rule that reversal of an underlying conviction for insufficient evidence bars retrial remains valid; Monge changes the rule only for prior-conviction-based recidivist enhancements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial of a habitual offender or related recidivist enhancement after the enhancement is reversed on appeal for insufficient evidence.
2. Whether the Indiana Supreme Court's prior decisions barring retrial of habitual offender enhancements after an insufficiency reversal remained good law after Monge v. California.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals' unchallenged remand concerning restitution should be summarily affirmed.

Disposition

remanded