context: In light of the double jeopardy violation, the additional $100 special assessment subjects Robertson to multiple punishments for the same offense. We conclude that this additional punishment prejudiced Robertson.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 403 F.3d 604, 607
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he $100 statutory special assessment that [the defendant] received for his second conviction is a collateral consequence of his conviction that constitutes actual prejudice."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Jones, 403 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir.2005) (“[T]he $100 statutory special assessment that [the defendant] received for his second conviction is a collateral consequence of his conviction that constitutes actual prejudice.”); see also Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“The separate conviction, apart from [a purportedly] concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 470 U.S. 856, 865
citation_b.parenthetical: "The separate conviction, apart from [a purportedly] concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Jones, 403 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir.2005) (“[T]he $100 statutory special assessment that [the defendant] received for his second conviction is a collateral consequence of his conviction that constitutes actual prejudice.”); see also Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“The separate conviction, apart from [a purportedly] concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.”).