(A) Imposition of a mandatory additional prison term of one, two, three, four, or five years upon an offender under division (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging a felony violation of division (A) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code specifies that either:
(1) The offender, within twenty years of the offense, previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more equivalent offenses ;
(2) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a specification of the type described in this section.
(B) The specification shall be stated at the end of the body of the indictment, count, or information and shall be stated in substantially the following form:
"SPECIFICATION (or, SPECIFICATION TO THE FIRST COUNT). The Grand Jurors (or insert the person's or the prosecuting attorney's name when appropriate) further find and specify that (set forth that the offender, within twenty years of committing the offense, previously had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more equivalent offenses or previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a specification of the type described in section 2941.1413 of the Revised Code)."
(C) As used in this section, "equivalent offense" has the same meaning as in section 4511.181 of the Revised Code.
Last updated March 9, 2023 at 9:08 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: State v. South (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3930 (Ohio 2015).
State v. South (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3930 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 45ד14—Sentence ranges that may be imposed on offenders convicted of a third-degree-felony charge for operating a vehicle while under the influence and a repeat-offender specification under R.C. 2941.1413. (No. 2014-0563—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided September 30, 2015.”
State v. Klembus (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1092 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 11ד19(G)(1)(d), which raises the OVI offense to a fourth-degree felony, and R.C. 2941.1413 (the “repeat-OVI specification”), which requires a mandatory additional prison term of one, two, three, four, or five years.”
State v. Hartsook, 2014 Ohio 4528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 22דAdditionally, consistent with R.C. 2941.1413, both offenses included a specification that Hartsook had been convicted of or pled guilty to five or more equivalent OVI offenses in the past 20 years.”
State v. Klembus, 2014 Ohio 3227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 15ד{¶18} R.C. 2941.1413, which provides the specification concerning an additional prison term for repeat OVI offenders, states: (A) Imposition of a mandatory additional prison term of one, two, three, four, or five years upon an offender under division (G)(2) of section 2929.”
State v. Harpel, 2020 Ohio 4513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10דThird Assignment of Error {¶33} Harpel argues that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2941.1413 by ordering him to serve a prison term in this case.”
State v. Eckles, 879 N.E.2d 829 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 12ד19 states that no person shall operate a vehicle while that person has a “concentration of seventeen-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of the person’s breath.”
State v. Burkhart, 2015 Ohio 3409 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 36דAdditionally, the OVI count was accompanied by a repeat OVI offender specification under R.C. 2941.1413, alleging that appellant, "within twenty years of the offense, previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more equivalent offenses[.”
State v. Kennedy, 2011 Ohio 4291 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 22ד19(A)(1)(a) and (G)(1)(d)(i), with a specification under R.C. 2941.1413 that Kennedy had at least five prior convictions of a similar nature within the past twenty years.”
State v. Cunningham, 2017 Ohio 377 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 15ד19(G)(1)(d), defining an offense as a fourth-degree felony and calling for a mandatory prison term for a specification involving five or more prior OVIs in twenty years. The court opined the specification improperly allowed the prosecutor to arbitrarily subject some individual…”
State v. Weideman, 2014 Ohio 5768 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12דBoth OVI charges were accompanied by an R.C. 2941.1413 specification, appellant having been convicted of five or more felony OVI offenses within the last 20 years of the date of the current offense.”
State v. Gwen, 2012 Ohio 5046 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 4דR.C. 2941.1413(A). The Ninth District held that the statutory reference to pleas of guilty or convictions meant that the General Assembly intended “the word ‘convicted’ to refer only to a determination of guilt and not a judgment of conviction.”
State v. Bode, 41 N.E.3d 1156 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 4ד1 Each specification charged that Bode, within 20 years of the offense, had previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more equivalent OVI offenses.”
State v. Harpel, 2020 Ohio 4513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Third Assignment of Error {¶33} Harpel argues that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2941.1413 by ordering him to serve a prison term in this case.”
State v. Gwen, 2012 Ohio 5046 (Ohio 2012). “R.C. 2941.1413(A). The Ninth District held that the statutory reference to pleas of guilty or convictions meant that the General Assembly intended “the word ‘convicted’ to refer only to a determination of guilt and not a judgment of conviction.”
State v. South (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3930 (Ohio 2015). “14—Sentence ranges that may be imposed on offenders convicted of a third-degree-felony charge for operating a vehicle while under the influence and a repeat-offender specification under R.C. 2941.1413. (No. 2014-0563—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided September 30, 2015.”
State v. Klembus, 2014 Ohio 3227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶18} R.C. 2941.1413, which provides the specification concerning an additional prison term for repeat OVI offenders, states: (A) Imposition of a mandatory additional prison term of one, two, three, four, or five years upon an offender under division (G)(2) of section 2929.”
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.