654 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Co. 1995), 94-TRC-955, State v. Harrison

Docket Nº:94-TRC-955A, 94-TRC-955B.
Citation:654 N.E.2d 210, 71 Ohio Misc.2d 54
Opinion Judge:THOMAS A. CAMPBELL, Judge.
Party Name:The STATE of Ohio v. HARRISON. [*]
Attorney:Martin S. Delahunty III, Youngstown, for defendant. Kenneth H. Inskeep, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff. Martin S. Delahunty III, Youngstown, for defendant. [71 Ohio Misc.2d 55]
Case Date:May 14, 1995
Court:County Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 210

654 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Co. 1995)

71 Ohio Misc.2d 54

The STATE of Ohio

v.

HARRISON. [*]

Nos. 94-TRC-955A, 94-TRC-955B.

Trumbull County Court of Ohio.

May 14, 1995

Page 211

Kenneth H. Inskeep, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff.

Martin S. Delahunty III, Youngstown, for defendant. [71 Ohio Misc.2d 55]

THOMAS A. CAMPBELL, Judge.

This matter came on for consideration upon defendant's motion to dismiss, wherein he argues that continued prosecution here is prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

Defendant argues that the state's administrative suspension of defendant's driving privileges, pursuant to R.C. 4511.191, is prior punishment under current double jeopardy analysis, and consequently the state may not proceed with the criminal action under R.C. 4511.19.

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from three distinct governmental 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. North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656. In the case at hand, the defendant argues that the administrative suspension is prior punishment and that continued prosecution here would result in impermissible multiple punishment for the same offense.

To prevail, the defendant must show that: (1) the Administrative License Suspension ("ALS") and the criminal action are separate proceedings; (2) both the administrative proceeding and the criminal proceeding arise from the same conduct of the defendant; and (3) the sanctions imposed under the ALS proceeding were "punishment." See United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency (C.A.9, 1994), 33 F.3d 1210.

I. Separate proceedings?

R.C. 4511.191 itself states that the ALS proceeding is independent of any criminal action. The Ohio Supreme Court has also stated that ALS proceedings are independent of any criminal action. See Hoban v. Rice (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 111, 54 O.O.2d 254, 267 N.E.2d 311. See, also, State v. Starnes (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 38, 50 O.O.2d 84, 254 N.E.2d 675.

Clearly, the ALS proceeding and the criminal action are separate proceedings.

II. Same conduct giving rise to both actions?

The defendant's driving...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP