If a violation of this chapter is a violation of the federal drug abuse control laws, as defined in section 3719.01 of the Revised Code, a conviction or acquittal under the federal drug abuse control laws for the same act is a bar to prosecution in this state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: State v. Gutierrez, 2017-Ohio-1147, 87 N.E.3d 812.
State v. Gutierrez, 2017-Ohio-1147, 87 N.E.3d 812. · cites it 7ד16 CAA 07 0030 4 {¶ 7} On May 25, 2016, appellant filed a motion to dismiss with the state court, claiming R.C. 2925.50 barred his prosecution in the state of Ohio.”
United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999). “See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2925.50 (Banks-Baldwin West 1997 & Supp.”
State v. Mott, 2023-Ohio-2006, 217 N.E.3d 920. · cites it 14דHe argued that his guilty plea in the federal case prohibited the state from pursuing the charged offenses pursuant to R.C. 2925.50, which states: 1 Appellant was barred from possessing a firearm in light of his August 29, 2006 conviction for distribution of cocaine in United…”
State v. Mott, 2021-Ohio-3854. · cites it 5ד{¶ 4} On December 10, 2019, appellant, citing R.C. 2925.50, moved to dismiss the case that was brought by the state.”
Gutierrez v. Gray, 2024-Ohio-2128. · cites it 9דOn May 25, 2015, appellant filed a motion to dismiss with the state court, claiming R.C. 2925.50 barred his prosecution in the state of Ohio.”
Gutierrez v. Burchinal, No. 2:22-cv-02039 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2022). · cites it 2דThe trial court alternatively determined that section 2925.50 was inapplicable because Gutierrez “in his federal case was not prosecuted for, convicted of, or punished for the offenses that are at issue in” his state case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.