Opinion · Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Lewis

85 Ohio St. 3d 632

Type: Opinion
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Date: 1999-06-16
Topic: litigation

holding that a defendant may be punished for multiple offenses 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS arising from a single criminal act, so long as the General Assembly intended cumulative punishment | explaining that the allied offenses analysis “answers the constitutional and state statutory inquiries” | explaining that the allied offenses analysis “answers the constitutional and state statutory inquiries” | explaining that the allied offenses analysis “answers the constitutional and state statutory inquiries” | “In Ohio it is unnecessary to resort to the Blockburger test[.]” | “In Ohio it is unnecessary to resort to the Blockburger test[.]” | aggravated robbery and involuntary manslaughter are not allied offenses | aggravated robbery and involuntary manslaughter are not allied offenses | reversed on other -14- grounds

Citator

Cited by: 149 opinions

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

85 Ohio St.3d 632

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LEWIS, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Lewis,

1999-Ohio-327

.]
Criminal law—Motor vehicles—Traffic offenses—Driving while intoxicated—
        Administrative license suspension—Reinstatement fee of former R.C.
        4511.191(L)(2) does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause—Court of
        appeals’ judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Uskert.
        (No. 98-2376—Submitted May 18, 1999—Decided June 16, 1999.)
            APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 19006.
                                  __________________
        Lawrence J. Cook, for appellant.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} We affirm on authority of State v. Uskert (1999),

85 Ohio St.3d 593

709 N.E.2d 1200

. The cause is remanded to the trial court to reinstate the original
$280 Administrative License Suspension reinstatement fee that the trial court
ordered be applied to any reinstatement fees due on the DUI suspension.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
        F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in
State v. Uskert (1999),

85 Ohio St.3d 593

709 N.E.2d 1200

.
                                  __________________