[Cite as State v. Hall,
2023-Ohio-3235.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 30578
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
SYREETA R. HALL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR-2021-10-3827
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 13, 2023
SUTTON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Syreeta Hall appeals from the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas’ denial of her motion for partial dismissal on the basis of double jeopardy. For the
reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
Relevant Background and Facts
{¶2} Ms. Hall was indicted for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol,
a drug of abuse, or a combination of the two, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), R.C.
4511.19(G)(1)(d), a felony of the fourth degree, and operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of a listed controlled substance or listed metabolite of a controlled substance in violation
of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(vii), R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d), a felony of the fourth degree. Both counts
of the indictment stated Ms. Hall, within ten years of the current offenses, was previously convicted
or pled guilty to three or more offenses, including (1) a violation of R.C. 4511.19 in Case No. CR
2
19-637288-A, in Cuyahoga County; (2) a violation of R.C. 4511.19 in Case No. 13 TRC 03464,
in Rocky River Municipal Court; and (3) a violation of C.C.C. 433.01 in Case No. 2012 TRC
072071, in Cleveland Municipal Court.
{¶3} Ms. Hall first moved to reduce her current OVI to a third offense, instead of a fourth
offense, alleging Case No. CR 19-637288-A was dismissed in its entirety upon her completion of
treatment in lieu of conviction. Ms. Hall did not attach a copy of the dismissal to her motion. The
State, in response, indicated only Count 1 of Case No. CR 19-637288-A, the drug possession
charge, was dismissed after Ms. Hall completed treatment in lieu of conviction. Further, the State
submitted a journal entry dated July 25, 2019, in Case No. CR 19-637288-A, indicating Ms. Hall
was placed into treatment in lieu of conviction only for the drug possession charge, and pleaded
guilty to the OVI charge in Count 2, whereupon she was sentenced to jail time, probation, and her
driver’s license was suspended. Prior to the filing of the State’s response, however, the trial court
denied Ms. Hall’s motion.
{¶4} Ms. Hall then moved for reconsideration and attached a copy of the May 21, 2020
dismissal in Case No. CR 19-637288-A, which stated: “[Case is dismissed. Defendant
successfully completed early intervention program or intervention in lieu of conviction.].” The
trial court denied Ms. Hall’s motion for reconsideration indicating Ms. Hall’s argument went to
the State’s ability to prove its case and not to the sufficiency of the indictment, which was not
proper in a motion to dismiss. Ms. Hall filed an untimely appeal from the trial court’s order
denying her motion for reconsideration, which this Court dismissed.
{¶5} Subsequent to this Court’s dismissal of Ms. Hall’s first appeal, Ms. Hall filed a
motion for partial dismissal, arguing, in part, double jeopardy. Notably, Ms. Hall’s motion largely
argued the alleged insufficiency of the indictment, based only upon the inclusion of Case No. CR
3
19-637288-A and the prior conviction. Ms. Hall did not challenge her current charges as stated in
the indictment. The trial court denied Ms. Hall’s motion.
{¶6} Ms. Hall then pleaded no contest to the indictment and has not yet been
sentenced. A transcript of the plea hearing was not made part of the record.
{¶7} Ms. Hall now appeals raising one assignment of error for our review.1
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO DISMISS THE ENHANCED
CHARGES AGAINST [MS. HALL] VIOLATED [MS. HALL’S]
PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT V), AND WAS AN ABUSE OF
JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
{¶8} In her sole assignment of error, Ms. Hall argues the trial court erred in refusing to
dismiss the enhanced charges against her because they violated her protections against double
jeopardy. Specifically, Ms. Hall argues she is “being tried twice for the same crime[,]” because
the State is using an OVI case that was allegedly dismissed in Cuyahoga County to support the
enhanced charges in Summit County. Ms. Hall, in making this argument, admitted the
enhancement, in question, is an “element of the offense” she is charged with in Summit County.
{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d):
[A]n offender who, within ten years of the offense, previously has been convicted
of or pleaded guilty to three or four violations of division (A) of this section or other
equivalent offenses … is guilty of a felony of the fourth degree.
(Emphasis added.) “When existence of a prior conviction does not simply enhance the penalty but
transforms the crime itself by increasing its degree, the prior conviction is an essential element of
1
“[A]n order denying a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds is a final, appealable
order.” State v. Anderson, 138 Ohio St. 3d 264,
2014-Ohio-542, ¶ 61.
4
the crime and must be proved by the [S]tate.” State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-
1533, ¶ 8, citing State v. Allen,
29 Ohio St.3d 53, 54 (1987). Additionally, R.C. 2945.75(B) states:
Whenever in any case it is necessary to prove a prior conviction, a certified copy of
the entry of judgment in such prior conviction together with evidence sufficient to
identify the defendant named in the entry as the offender in the case at bar, is
sufficient to prove such prior conviction.
{¶10} In State v. Echard, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24643, 2009-Ohio-6616, this Court faced
a similar factual situation regarding a pre-trial motion in limine and an enhancement of the indicted
felony:
The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Echard for a felony of the third degree instead of a
misdemeanor because he, allegedly, had “previously pleaded guilty to or been
convicted” of two or more offenses of domestic violence. … By pleading no
contest and foregoing a trial, Mr. Echard lost his opportunity to raise at trial whether
the State could use his guilty plea in a prior case to prove an essential element of
the latest domestic violence charge. He, therefore, did not preserve that issue for
appeal.
Mr. Echard also did not preserve his argument under Rule 12(I) of the Ohio Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Rule 12(I) provides that “[a] plea of no contest does not
preclude a defendant from asserting upon appeal that the trial court prejudicially
erred in ruling on a pretrial motion, including a pretrial motion to suppress
evidence.” Within the criminal context, pretrial motions implicate only “any
defense, objection, evidentiary issue, or request that is capable of determination
without the trial of the general issue.” Crim. R. 12(C). In order to fall under Rule
12(I), therefore, Mr. Echard’s motion would have to be “capable of determination
without the trial of the general issue.” In a criminal case, “determination of the
general issue … is always the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the offense or
offenses alleged.” State v. Evans, 2d Dist. No. 21669, 2007-Ohio-6587, at ¶ 12.
By arguing that the State could not use the guilty plea he entered in a prior domestic
violence case to establish the degree of the offense in this case, Mr. Echard
challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to one of the essential elements of the
charged offense. See [Brooke at ¶ 8]. His motion placed the question of whether he
could be convicted of a felony of the third degree squarely at issue. Accordingly,
because it went to his “guilt or innocence of the … offense alleged,” it was not
“capable of determination without the trial of the general issue” and was not a
pretrial motion under Rule 12(C). [Evans] at ¶ 12; Crim. R. 12(C). Mr. Echard’s
argument, therefore, was not preserved for appeal under Rule 12(I).
Echard at ¶ 5-7.
5
{¶11} Here, Ms. Hall questions whether she can be convicted of a felony of the fourth
degree for her OVI offense, an enhanced penalty, because Case No. CR 19-637288-A was
previously dismissed in its entirety. While Ms. Hall did not fully develop this argument, she
asserts the utilization of Case No. CR 19-637288-A, to enhance her current charges in Summit
County, somehow violates her double jeopardy protections against successive prosecutions.
However, Ms. Hall does not present this Court with a persuasive argument regarding how use of
Case No. CR 19-637288-A, for the sole purpose of proving an element of the current OVI charges,
violates her protections against double jeopardy. Indeed, the State is not re-prosecuting Case No.
CR 19-637288-A to offend Ms. Hall’s protections against double jeopardy. Instead, the State, like
in Echard, supra, is using Case No. 19-637288-A to prove an element of the current charges.
Therefore, Ms. Hall’s protections against double jeopardy have not been violated in this matter,
and trial court did not err in denying Ms. Hall’s motion to dismiss in this regard.
{¶12} Accordingly, Ms. Hall’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶13} Based upon the foregoing, Ms. Hall’s sole assignment of error is overruled and the
judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
6
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETTY SUTTON
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
RICHARD J. KOLODA, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
