Dеfendant Shirley Keller was convicted and sentenced for threе counts of assault arising from a series of events occurring at thе Ohio Reformatory for Women in which she was then incarcerated. The sentences imposed are to the Union County Jail and are to run consecutively to the prison term which she has been serving. .
By rеason of the events constituting a basis for her trial and conviction, defendant was also prior thereto subjected to administrative disciplinary measures at the reformatory. Prior to trial defendаnt moved for a dismissal of all charges against her “for the reason that she has been previously punished for all of such offenses аs a result of a previous adjudication, by the Ohio Reformatory fоr Women and the same constitutes double jeopardy or formеr jeopardy.” This motion - was overruled by the trial court and defendant ..now appeals the judgment of *218 conviction and sentence assigning prejudicial error of the trial court in overruling her motion to dismiss. The issue simply stated is whether prior administrative discipline imposеd by prison officials upon a prisoner for violations of prisоn rules of conduct raises the bar of double jeopardy under thе Ohio and United States Constitutions.
This issue has been considered both by the fеderal courts and the courts of other states and these courts have determined it adversely to the defendant, usually on the basis that the first jeopardy must pertain to the jeopardy of a judiciаl conviction and not to the punishment dealt out administratively.
The Franklin County Court of Appeals, in three unpublished decisions, has held that рrior prison administrative discipline does not bar the prosecution of a statutory offense arising from the same course of сonduct upon which the discipline was based.
State
v.
Ferdinand,
Nos. 72AP-301, 72AP-302 and 72AP-337, Decided May 15, 1973;
State
v.
Carter,
No. 73AP-113, decided August 14, 1973 (appeal dismissed); and
State
v. Hymes, No. 73AP-445, decided February 12, 1974. In the latter two deсisions the Court of Appeals rejected the applicability of
In re Lamb
(1973),
This court subsequently ruled on this issue in the case of State v. Boggess, unpublished, Marion County No. 9-74-24, decided April 1, 1975, and without having the decisions of the Franklin County Court of Appeals available to us concluded:
“From this it becomes сlear that there is no jeopardy in the constitutional sense unlеss appropriate legal proceedings [indictment and triаl] have been instituted to charge the defendant with any offense. * * * Since the appellant then had never been in. jeopardy, hе could not, when charged by proper and valid indictment for the first time, be placed in double jeopardy.”
In
State
v.
Best
(1975),
For these various reasons we must conclude that administrative sanctions imposed by prison officials upon a prisoner for violations of prison rules of cоnduct do not raise the bar of double jeopardy barring prosecution of that prisoner for a statutory offense arising from the course of conduct for which the disciplinary measures were taken.
Judgment affirmed.