State v. Mohamed
2021 Ohio 3643
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On March 13, 2019 Mohamed rear‑ended another car, then later backed his vehicle into a building causing ~$7,200 in damage.
- Mohamed pleaded guilty in Licking County Municipal Court to misdemeanor hit/skip on May 23, 2019; municipal court later ordered $1,000 restitution on June 18, 2019.
- A Licking County grand jury indicted Mohamed (Sept. 12, 2019) for felony tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)) and felony vandalism (R.C. 2909.05(B)(1)(a)) arising from the same incident.
- Mohamed moved to dismiss the felony indictment on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the municipal plea was a negotiated plea that precluded further prosecution; the trial court denied the motion.
- Mohamed pled no contest to the felonies (June 9, 2020), was sentenced (Aug. 4, 2020) to concurrent prison terms (15 months and 12 months) and ordered to pay $7,200 restitution.
- On appeal the court affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss and the prison sentence, but vacated the $7,200 restitution order and remanded for a restitution hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the municipal plea barred subsequent felony prosecution (double jeopardy / negotiated plea) | No negotiated plea existed on the record; Carpenter inapplicable; same‑elements test permits prosecution | Municipal plea was a bargain that should preclude further charges arising from the incident | Trial court and appellate court: no evidence of a negotiated plea on the record; Carpenter inapplicable; double jeopardy does not bar prosecution (affirmed) |
| Whether prison (vs community control) was improper | Sentence within statutory range; trial court properly considered recidivism and bond misconduct | Mohamed argued due process violated and community control should have been imposed | Sentence within statutory range and supported by R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings; appellate court will not disturb (affirmed) |
| Whether ordering $7,200 restitution was proper (and not duplicative) | Damages totaled $7,200 and insurance deductible $1,000; restitution to victim and insurer appropriate | Municipal court already ordered $1,000 restitution; trial court’s $7,200 would duplicate and exceed victim’s economic loss | Appellate court: insufficient record support for $7,200 (municipal $1,000 order noted); vacated restitution order and remanded for a restitution hearing (reversed in part) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carpenter, 68 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 1993) (a negotiated plea that reasonably promises to terminate prosecution can bar later related charges unless the state reserves the right)
- State v. Azeen, 163 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 2021) (clarifies that a negotiated plea must appear on the record; off‑the‑record discussions are not enough)
- State v. Zima, 102 Ohio St.3d 61 (Ohio 2004) (municipal court pleas are not presumed to dispose of pending or potential felony charges outside municipal jurisdiction)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑elements test for successive prosecutions)
- State v. Dye, 127 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 2010) (for Carpenter protection, the record must show the elements of a contract for a negotiated plea)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (promises by a prosecutor that induce a plea must be fulfilled)