City of Cleveland v. Oke, 2018-Ohio-2846

Double jeopardy when court sentenced defendant twice upon termination from drug court.

Hickman v. State, 81 N.E.3d 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)

Imposition of sanctions in drug court and subsequent revocation did not constitute double jeopardy or res judicata.

DiMeglio v. State, 29 A.3d 663 (Md. App. 2011)

Imposition of sanction for drinking and driving in DUI Court did not bar subsequent prosecution for DUI offense on double jeopardy grounds.

Doyle v. State, 302 S.W.3d 607 (Ark. App. Feb.18, 2009)

Double jeopardy does not apply to revocation proceedings.

In re O.F. 773 N.W.2d 206 (N.D. 2009)

Imposition of drug court sanctions did not bar a subsequent prosecution and conviction for the identical conduct upon which the sanctions were based.

United States v. Carlton, 442 F.3d 802, 809 (2d Cir 2006)

Double jeopardy problem is avoided by treating post-revocation sanctions as part of the penalty for the initial offense.

State v. Griffin, 109 P.3d 870, 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)

License revocation in addition to criminal prosecution not double jeopardy.

United States. v. McInnis, 429 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2005)

Holding that double jeopardy does not apply to the revocation of supervised release because it is considered part of the original sentence.

People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 223, 223 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004)

Aff’d on other grounds, 113 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2005) (holding that sentencing for deferred judgment violations, including positive urine tests, does not violate double jeopardy.

C.H. v. State, 850 So.2d 675, 675 (Fla. 2003)

Adding additional conditions to a defendant’s probation, such as drug court, without a violation of probation violates double jeopardy.

One Car v. State, 122 S.W.3d 422, 422 (Tex. App. 2003)

Because the double jeopardy clause prohibits multiple criminal penalties for the same conduct, vehicle forfeitures and driver’s license revocations do not violate the double jeopardy clause.

Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 405 (1995)

Prohibition against being punished multiple times for the same offense does not prevent consideration of misconduct, upon imposition of the original sentence or upon re-sentencing.

United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 129 (1980)

Double jeopardy clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after either an acquittal or a conviction and multiple criminal punishments for the same offense.

Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 529 (1975)

The double jeopardy clause applies to any juvenile proceeding that has the potential to deprive the juvenile of liberty.