State v. Keller
| Decision Date | 05 November 1976 |
| Citation | 369 N.E.2d 798,6 O.O.3d 235,52 Ohio App.2d 217 |
| Parties | , 6 O.O.3d 235 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. KELLER, Appellant. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner for a violation of prison rules of conduct do not raise the bar of double jeopardy against the prosecution of that prisoner for a statutory offense arising from the course of conduct for which the disciplinary measures were taken.
Gary F. McKinley, Pros. Atty., Marysville, for appellee.
David F. Allen, Marysville, for appellant.
Defendant Shirley Keller was convicted and sentenced for three counts of assault arising from a series of events occurring at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in which she was then incarcerated. The sentences imposed are to the Union County Jail and are to run consecutively to the prison term which she has been serving.
By reason of the events constituting a basis for her trial and conviction, defendant was also prior thereto subjected to administrative disciplinary measures at the reformatory. Prior to trial defendant moved for a dismissal of all charges against her "for the reason that she has been previously punished for all of such offenses as a result of a previous adjudication by the Ohio Reformatory for Women and the same constitutes double jeopardy or former jeopardy." This motion was overruled by the trial court and defendant now appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence assigning prejudicial error of the trial court in overruling her motion to dismiss. The issue simply stated is whether prior administrative discipline imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner for violations of prison rules of conduct raises the bar of double jeopardy under the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
This issue has been considered both by the federal courts and the courts of other states and these courts have determined it adversely to the defendant, usually on the basis that the first jeopardy must pertain to the jeopardy of a judicial conviction and not to the punishment dealt out administratively.
The Franklin County Court of Appeals, in three unpublished decisions, has held that prior prison administrative discipline does not bar the prosecution of a statutory offense arising from the same course of conduct upon which the discipline was based. State v. Ferdinand, Nos. 72AP-301, 72AP-302 and 72AP-337, Decided May 15, 1973; State v. Carter, No. 73AP-113, decided August 14, 1973 (appeal dismissed); and State v. Hymes, No. 73AP-445, decided February 12, 1974. In the latter two decisions the Court of Appeals rejected the applicability of In re...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gustafson
...jeopardy purposes. See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez-Fundora (C.A.2, 1995), 58 F.3d 802; see, also, State v. Keller (1976), 52 Ohio App.2d 217, 6 O.O.3d 235, 369 N.E.2d 798. And, in United States v. Stoller (C.A.1, 1996), 78 F.3d 710, the court found an administrative debarment imposed ......
-
Conley v. Dingess
...People v. Eggleston, 255 Cal.App.2d 337, 63 Cal.Rptr. 104 (1967); People v. Bachman, 50 Mich.App. 682, 213 N.W.2d 800 (1974); State v. Keller, 52 Ohio App.2d 217, 6 O.Ops.3d 235, 369 N.E.2d 798 (1976); State v. Collins, 115 N.H. 499, 345 A.2d 162 (1975) and Gilchrist v. United States, 427 F......
-
State v. Orlando Powell
... ... States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution. Nor did our ... colleagues in the Third District find double jeopardy where ... another prisoner was convicted of assault after she received ... administrative punishment for that assault. See State v ... Keller (1976), 52 Ohio App.2d 217, 369 N.E.2d 798 ... Appellant urges us to revisit our earlier decision in ... Procter, based on United States v. Halper ... (1989), 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487. In ... Halper, the Supreme Court recognized that ... ...
-
State v. Vasquez, CA97-01-006
...and bar the subsequent prosecution of a defendant for a criminal offense arising out of the same conduct. State v. Keller (1976), 52 Ohio App.2d 217, 6 O.O.3d 235, 369 N.E.2d 798; State v. Procter (1977), 51 Ohio App.2d 151, 5 O.O.3d 309, 367 N.E.2d 908; but, see, In re Lamb (1973), 34 Ohio......