Negotiated Plea Bar Subsequent Charges Out of Same Facts Per 10th Distrit


State of Ohio vs. Brian Church (12/4/12) Franklin County Court of Appeals decision on Double Jeopardy

Here's a common fact pattern in Franklin County. The defendant gets stopped for jaywalking and gets patted down and the cop finds weed. The defendant then gets through the jail and is brought to courtroom 4D for his bond hearing and arraignment. He pleads not guilty. 3 weeks later, the defendant goes to court and the offer is to plead guilty to the jaywalking and the prosecution will dismiss the possession charge. The defendant pleads guilty to jaywalking and the court tells the defendant, ""the offer is to allow you to plead to the jaywalking violation and dismiss the drug abuse." After the defendant entered his plea of guilty, the court stated: "Your guilty plea is accepted to the jaywalking violation and the other matter is dismissed as part of the plea agreement." The record fails to indicate that the prosecution expressly reserved the right to pursue more serious drug charges against the defendant at the time of that plea. The 10th District Court of Appeals found that the subsequent trafficking charge brought in the common pleas court involving the same marijuana (i.e., arose out of the same incident) that served as the basis for the dismissed possession charge.

The rationale is rooted in the concept of finality. The current controlling case in Ohio is Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in State v. Dye, 127 Ohio St.3d 357, 2010-Ohio-5728. In Dye, the Supreme Court "recently reiterated that a 'negotiated guilty plea' bars successive prosecutions where the defendant would reasonably believe that his or her plea would bar further prosecutions for any greater offense related to the same factual scenario." In Dye, the court determined that Dye had "a reasonable expectation that his plea of guilty would end criminal prosecution based on this incident."