Legal Opinion

State v. Martello

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 13, 2002No. 2001-1048PublishedCited by 81 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

{¶ 1} We are required to determine whether the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions preclude a criminal defendant who is sanctioned for violating Ohio’s postrelease control statute, R.C. 2967.28, from being criminally prosecuted for the same conduct that was the reason for the sanction. For the reasons that follow, we find that the criminal prosecution does not offend principles of double jeopardy. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

*399I

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In August 1997, defendant-appellee, Joseph Martello, was sentenced on charges of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Helvering v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. HessSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by81 opinions

  1. State v. JordanOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. BloomerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. BrewerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State v. Bates (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  5. State v. MartelloOhio Supreme Court · 2002

76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API