Cleveland v. Jones, 2017 Ohio 7320

Background

On June 15, 2013, Jones was stopped for swerving and charged with multiple offenses including OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)), an enhanced OVI count (A)(2), driving under suspension (DUS), and marked lanes.
At plea hearing Jones entered a no-contest plea; the trial court, sua sponte and over the prosecutor’s objection, amended the OVI (A)(1)(a) to a municipal physical-control offense (CCO 433.011) and found him guilty of physical control while acquitting as to the enhanced OVI count (A)(2); court also convicted DUS and marked lanes.
The court sentenced Jones, who completed the sentence and probation; the city appealed the physical-control conviction to the Eighth District Appellate Court.
The appellate panel (plurality + concurrences/dissent) reversed the physical-control conviction and remanded; the Ohio Supreme Court later dismissed Jones’s further appeal as improvidently accepted, limiting citation of the court of appeals opinion.
On remand to municipal court the case was reassigned; Jones moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds. The municipal court denied the motion; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (City)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held
Does double jeopardy bar reprosecution of the OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) count after the trial court amended the charge and entered judgment on a physical-control offense following Jones’s no-contest plea?	The city contends remand for further proceedings is appropriate after the appellate reversal of the physical-control conviction.	Jones argues jeopardy attached when the court accepted his no-contest plea and entered judgment, so reprosecution on the original OVI is barred.	Court held double jeopardy bars further prosecution of the OVI count; reverse denial of dismissal and instructs acquittal on OVI (A)(1)(a).
Are the DUS and marked-lanes convictions (and the acquittal on enhanced OVI (A)(2)) subject to reprosecution?	City did not appeal those unchallenged verdicts and suggests remand does not affect them.	Jones argues those unappealed convictions/acquittals are final; reprosecution would violate double jeopardy.	Court held those unappealed verdicts are final; any pending charging entries for them must be dismissed because jeopardy attached.
Does a no-contest plea accepted by the court place the defendant in jeopardy even if the plea or subsequent amendment was erroneous or the court abused discretion?	City implied the court’s amendment and later appellate reversal permit continued proceedings.	Jones relied on precedent that jeopardy attaches at acceptance of a no-contest plea, barring successive prosecution.	Court reaffirmed that jeopardy attaches when the court accepts a no-contest plea, regardless of later error or abuse of discretion.
Did the fragmented reasoning of the appellate panel or the Supreme Court’s dismissal alter double jeopardy protections or permit reprosecution?	City relied on appellate reversal and remand as authority to proceed.	Jones argued the lack of a unanimous rationale and the Supreme Court’s dismiss-with-limitations meant further prosecution is barred.	Court found the fractured earlier opinions did not justify reprosecution; double jeopardy protects Jones despite the appellate fragmentation and the Supreme Court’s dismissal.

Key Cases Cited

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (establishes three protections of Double Jeopardy: against successive prosecutions after acquittal or conviction and multiple punishments)
State ex rel. Sawyer v. O’Connor, 54 Ohio St.2d 380 (court acceptance of a no-contest plea places defendant in jeopardy)
State v. Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d 425 (jeopardy attaches at different points depending on proceeding)
State v. Anderson, 6 N.E.3d 23 (denial of double-jeopardy motion is immediately appealable)
In re A.G., 69 N.E.3d 646 (Ohio and U.S. Constitutions protect against successive prosecutions and multiple punishments)
State v. Morris, 972 N.E.2d 528 (standard of review: de novo for denial of double-jeopardy motion)