State v. Klembus (Slip Opinion), 146 Ohio St. 3d 84

In 2012 Dean Klembus was arrested for OVI; he had five prior OVI convictions (1992, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2008).
Because of five prior OVI convictions in the preceding 20 years, the state charged two counts as fourth-degree felonies under R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) and attached the repeat-OVI specification under R.C. 2941.1413 to each count.
Klembus moved to dismiss the repeat-OVI specifications on equal-protection grounds; the trial court denied the motion, he pled no contest, and the court sentenced him to consecutive one-year terms (one year for the OVI and one year for the specification).
The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding R.C. 2941.1413 violated equal protection because it imposes additional penalties without requiring proof beyond that needed to elevate the offense and is not required to be uniformly charged.
The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which framed two propositions: (1) whether R.C. 2941.1413 is facially constitutional under equal protection; and (2) whether the government may prosecute under statutes providing different penalties for the same conduct so long as it does not unjustifiably discriminate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Klembus)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether R.C. 2941.1413 (repeat-OVI specification) violates equal protection	Specification imposes extra punishment without requiring proof beyond that needed to elevate OVI to a fourth-degree felony; identical proof but greater penalty is unconstitutional	Specification and felony-elevation are part of a graduated statutory scheme addressing recidivism; rational basis exists for differential penalties	Court held the specification and statute are rationally related to legitimate state interests and do not violate equal protection
Whether raising an OVI to a higher felony and attaching a repeat specification constitutes impermissible cumulative punishment for identical conduct	The higher felony level plus specification results in cumulative punishment based on identical prior-conviction proof, violating Wilson-based principle	Prior convictions are not separate criminal prohibitions; specifications are sentencing enhancements within a graduated penalty system and do not create a new offense	Court held Wilson inapplicable because specifications enhance sentencing rather than define a separate offense; no equal-protection violation

State v. Wilson, 58 Ohio St.2d 52 (discussion of whether statutes with identical elements but different penalties violate equal protection)
McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (standards for equal-protection review under Ohio and federal constitutions)
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (rational-basis principle: legislature may classify so long as not treating alike persons in relevant respects differently)
Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (recognizing government’s legitimate interest in combating recidivism)
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (recidivism and prosecutorial interests)
Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673 (historical recognition of punishing recidivists)
State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (specifications as sentencing enhancements, not separate offenses)
State v. South, 144 Ohio St.3d 295 (context on felony-level OVI penalties)