Franklin County Courthouse Requires Everyone To Wear Masks This Summer. Learn More

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Specification for Repeat OVI Convictions Constitutional

/

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled today that a specification regarding repeat OVI convictions does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. or Ohio constitutions.

Ohio can raise the felony level and impose an additional mandatory prison term on OVI offenders who have been convicted of that offense five or more times within two decades. That is the result of an Ohio Supreme Court ruling today, which explains that the specification in question is constitutionally valid and not in violation of either state or federal Equal Protection Clauses.

The ruling stemmed from a 2012 Cuyahoga County arrest. The defendant was arrested for drunk driving, which was his sixth charge of that kind since 1992. He was charged with two fourth-degree felonies since he had been convicted five times prior for OVI in the past 20 years.

The repeat OVI specification is detailed in R.C. 2941.1413 – Mandatory additional prison term for felony OVI violation precluded unless charging instrument specifies prior convictions.

The defendant petitioned for a dismissal of the repeat OVI specification, saying that it was unconstitutional for the state to seek a more severe punishment without showing proof that would trigger a higher felony level offense.

Speaking to the defendant’s argument that the repeat OVI specification violated his equal protection rights, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger explained that equal protection does not require equal penalties. Because simply having prior OVIs on your record isn’t a crime in and of itself, this case does not involve multiple criminal offenses, but rather one – driving under the influence in 2012.

The Eight District applied State v. Wilson, reversing the lower court’s decision, which would have only been appropriate had the case involved two statutes prohibiting identical conduct and imposing different punishments. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that this was a misapplication of State v. Wilson, and that the state had every reason to impose enhanced prison time in this particular case.

For more information on this case, visit Court News Ohio.