State v. Pendleton (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6833

On January 4, 2016 police seized multiple bags; three bags that contained both heroin and fentanyl totaled 133.62 grams.
Pendleton was indicted for trafficking heroin (>50 g) and trafficking fentanyl (>=100 g) among other charges; the state argued the mixture counts as 133.62 g of each drug.
A jury convicted Pendleton; the trial court sentenced him consecutively (11 years for heroin, 8 years for fentanyl, plus other terms for a 21-year total).
The Second District affirmed; Pendleton appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on a double-jeopardy ground limited to whether the same mixture weight may be used to satisfy weight elements for both drug offenses.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that treating the same singular quantity of a mixture as the full weight of two different drugs and imposing separate punishments violated double-jeopardy; it vacated the heroin and fentanyl sentences and remanded for the state to elect which conviction to pursue for sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing separate sentences for trafficking in heroin and trafficking in fentanyl (both based on the same 133.62 g mixture) violated Double Jeopardy	State: Different drug offenses are distinct; legislature intended separate punishments for different drugs, so separate sentences are allowed	Pendleton: Same conduct and same singular quantity cannot support two weight‑based punishments; double jeopardy barred duplicative punishment	Held: Yes. Court held imposing separate punishments for the singular quantity violated Double Jeopardy; heroin and fentanyl sentences vacated and remanded for election
Whether R.C. 2925.03 / Gonzales permit treating a single mixture’s total weight as 100% of each controlled substance simultaneously (i.e., double‑counting weight)	State: Following Gonzales, statutes treat a compound/mixture as the named drug including fillers, so the full bulk may be used to establish weight for each drug offense	Pendleton: While a statute may treat a mixture as the named drug for a single offense, the statute does not authorize creating additional conduct by counting the same full bulk as separate full quantities for different drugs	Held: Court: Although the statutes create a legal fiction that the mixture may be treated as the named drug to establish weight, they do not allow that fiction to be doubled to create separate punishments for multiple different drugs based on the same singular quantity

Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (holding sentencing court may not impose greater punishment than legislature intended)
State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 276 (2017) (construing drug statutes to allow weight of a mixture to be treated as weight of the named drug)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (allied‑offenses analysis for multiple punishments)
State v. Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447 (2008) (use of R.C. 2941.25 to determine legislative intent on allied offenses)
State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 (2013) (R.C. 2941.25 and legislative intent on cumulative sentencing)
Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) (Double Jeopardy protects against successive punishments for the same offense; separate issues about same conduct vs same offence)