State v. Dixon
2011 Ohio 5290
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Dixon was charged in municipal court with misdemeanor possession of drugs and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia after a search of 1732 Renee Drive; the plea concluded with guilty to the possession charge and dismissal of the paraphernalia charge.
- A powder on a plate and a straw found at the scene was later identified as oxycodone (a Schedule II drug) after Dixon’s municipal plea.
- Dixon contends the municipal plea amounted to a result of double jeopardy barring later felony charges arising from the same incident.
- In January 2010 Dixon was indicted in common pleas court for possession of oxycodone (felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia related to the same November 11, 2009 events.
- A motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds was held; the court allowed the oxycodone charge to proceed but dismissed the straw-based paraphernalia charge from the later indictment.
- Dixon pled no contest to aggravated drug possession and was sentenced; the issue on appeal concerns whether double jeopardy barred the common pleas proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy bar the later felony oxycodone charge? | Dixon | State | Not barred; separate offenses could be proved; record insufficient to prove plea covered oxycodone. |
| Who bears the burden to prove no double jeopardy violation? | Dixon | State | State carried the burden and satisfied it; double jeopardy not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delfino, 22 Ohio St.3d 270 (1986) (different drug offenses under R.C. 2925.11(C) may constitute separate offenses)
- Barr, 178 Ohio App.3d 318 (2008-Ohio-4754) (record must show plea formed basis for terminating any further liability)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (federal double jeopardy applies to the states)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (three aspects of double jeopardy include successive prosecutions and multiple punishments)