433 U.S. 682 (1977)
A clerk in a Tulsa, Okla., grocery store was shot and killed by a companion of petitioner in the course of a robbery of the store by the two men.1 Petitioner was convicted of felony-murder in Oklahoma State court.2
The opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in this case states that in a felony murder case, the proof of the underlying felony, here robbery with firearms, is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction.3 Petitioner nevertheless was thereafter brought to trial and convicted on a separate information charging the robbery with firearms.4 The trial court denied his motion to dismiss on the ground that this prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he had already been convicted of the offense in the felony-murder trial.5 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.6
The State conceded in its response to the petition for certiorari that in the Murder case, it was necessary for all the ingredients of the underlying felony of Robbery with Firearms to be proved.7
Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars prosecution for robbery with firearms after conviction of felony murder?8
When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.9
Yes. The established facts show that the petitioner's felony murder conviction could not be obtained without proof of the robbery with firearms.10 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals explicitly stated that proof of the underlying felony is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction.11 Therefore, the subsequent prosecution for the robbery with firearms after the felony murder conviction is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.12
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars the separate prosecution for robbery with firearms.13
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan joined the Court’s opinion but in any event would reverse on a ground not addressed by the Court, namely, that the State did not prosecute the two informations in one proceeding.14 He adheres to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.15