State v. Pope, 88 N.E.3d 584

On April 6, 2016, Kenneth Pope was found in his vehicle after a single-vehicle crash; officers smelled alcohol, his breath test was over the limit, and a loaded handgun was found under the driver’s seat.
Pope was charged in Dayton Municipal Court with misdemeanor OVI (R.C. 4511.19) and later convicted there while a separate Montgomery County indictment charged him with felony improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle while intoxicated (R.C. 2923.16(D)(1)).
After the municipal OVI conviction, Pope moved to dismiss the county indictment on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the OVI was a lesser-included offense and that the two offenses were allied offenses of similar import.
The trial court denied the motion; Pope pleaded no contest to the firearm charge, was convicted, and appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss.
The court reviewed the double jeopardy claim de novo and applied the Blockburger same-elements test for successive prosecutions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior OVI conviction bars subsequent prosecution for felony improper handling of a firearm under Double Jeopardy (lesser-included offense)	State: Blockburger governs successive prosecutions; offenses are distinct	Pope: OVI is a lesser included offense of R.C. 2923.16(D)(1) because both require intoxication and he was driving	Held: Not lesser-included — R.C. 2923.16(D)(1) does not require movement; OVI requires "operate" (movement), so each offense has an element the other lacks
Whether the offenses are allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 (and thus barred)	State: Even under allied-offense analysis, the offenses are dissimilar in import and may be punished separately	Pope: OVI and firearm offense are allied and thus prosecution on the firearm charge after OVI conviction is barred	Held: Not allied — harms are different (risk from operating intoxicated vehicle v. risk from possessing/transporting a firearm while intoxicated); convictions may stand

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for determining whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
State v. Zima, 102 Ohio St.3d 61 (Ohio 2004) (applies Blockburger to successive prosecutions)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (discusses allied-offense analysis and multi-factor test for import/animus)
State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (Ohio 1988) (test for lesser-included offenses)
State v. Earley, 145 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 2015) (explains how differing resulting harms make offenses dissimilar under R.C. 2941.25)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (successive prosecution principles regarding greater and lesser included offenses)