459 U.S. 359 (1983)
On the evening of November 24, 1978, respondent and two accomplices entered an A & P supermarket in Kansas City, Missouri.1 Respondent entered the store manager's office and ordered the manager, at gunpoint, to open two safes.2 While the manager was complying with the demands of the robbers, respondent struck him twice with the butt of his revolver.3 While the robbery was in progress, an employee who drove in front of the store observed the robbery and went to a nearby bank to alert an off-duty police officer.4 That officer arrived at the front of the store and ordered the three men to stop.5 Respondent fired a shot at the officer, and the officer returned the fire, but the trio escaped.6
Respondent and his accomplices were apprehended.7 In addition to being positively identified by the store manager and the police officer at trial and in a lineup, respondent made an oral and written confession which was admitted in evidence.8 At his trial, respondent offered no direct evidence and was convicted of robbery in the first degree, armed criminal action, and assault with malice.9
Missouri Rev. Stat. § 560.120 (1969) proscribes robbery in the first degree.10 Missouri Rev. Stat. § 560.135 (Supp. 1975) prescribes the punishment for robbery in the first degree.11 Missouri Rev. Stat. § 559.225 (Supp. 1976) proscribes armed criminal action.12 Pursuant to these statutes, respondent was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years' imprisonment for the robbery and fifteen years for armed criminal action, as well as a consecutive term of five years' imprisonment for assault, for a total of twenty years.13
On appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, respondent claimed that his sentence for both robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.14 The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed and reversed respondent's conviction and 15-year sentence for armed criminal action.15 The Court of Appeals relied entirely upon the holding of the Missouri Supreme Court opinions in State v. Haggard, 619 S. W. 2d 44 (1981); Sours v. State, 593 S. W. 2d 208 (Sours I), vacated and remanded, 446 U. S. 962 (1980); and Sours v. State, 603 S. W. 2d 592 (1980) (Sours II), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1131 (1981).16 The State's timely alternative motion for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied by the Court of Appeals on September 15, 1981.17 The Missouri Supreme Court denied review on November 10, 1981.18 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.19
Whether the prosecution and conviction of a criminal defendant in a single trial on both a charge of armed criminal action and a charge of first-degree robbery violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?20
With respect to cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial, the Double Jeopardy Clause does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended.21 Where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the same conduct under Blockburger, cumulative punishment may be imposed.22
No. Respondent was convicted in a single trial of first-degree robbery under Missouri Rev. Stat. § 560.120 and armed criminal action under Missouri Rev. Stat. § 559.225 arising from the same supermarket robbery on November 24, 1978, and received separate sentences of ten years and fifteen years respectively.23
Because the legislature specifically authorized cumulative punishment, the Double Jeopardy Clause permits the convictions and sentences even if the offenses would be considered the same under the Blockburger test.24
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the convictions and cumulative sentences for armed criminal action and first-degree robbery in a single trial.25
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented on the ground that the Blockburger test has independent constitutional content that limits legislative power to authorize multiple punishments for the same offense.26 He argued that first-degree robbery and armed criminal action constitute the same offense.27 The State was not required to prove any additional fact to punish respondent for first-degree robbery beyond what was required for armed criminal action.28 Marshall contended that allowing the legislature to define nominally distinct crimes would eliminate any limit on the number of convictions obtainable from a single act, thereby undermining the protection against multiple punishments.29
He concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids multiple convictions and sentences here regardless of legislative intent.30