A Knox County man’s constitutional rights were not violated when a trial judge accepted his guilty plea but declined to sentence him after the prosecution discovered that the charge had been brought using a procedure not authorized by Ohio law, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

After the Knox County Prosecutor’s Office reached a plea agreement with Daniel Thoen that indicated he faced a maximum prison term of 11 years, the office discovered that the charge carried a mandatory life-imprisonment term and could not be prosecuted using a bill of information. The trial court declined to enforce the plea agreement and dismissed the bill of information. The prosecutor then obtained an indictment against Thoen on a charge carrying a mandatory prison term of 15 years to life.

The Supreme Court rejected Thoen’s claim that stopping the plea deal, which the court accepted, violated double jeopardy protections afforded by the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. The Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeals decision, which allowed Thoen’s conviction for rape of a child under the age of 10 to stand.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Megan E. Shanahan explained that jeopardy did not attach when the trial court accepted Thoen’s guilty plea because the prosecution had proceeded using a charging instrument not authorized by Ohio law. The trial court could not enter a lawful judgment of conviction based on that plea, the Court ruled.

“This case does not arise from a completed prosecution that culminated in a lawful judgment of conviction. Nor could it,” Justice Shanahan wrote. “Because the prosecution initially proceeded on a charging instrument that Ohio law did not authorize, the trial court’s unconditional acceptance of Thoen’s guilty plea to the unlawful bill of information could not culminate in a lawful judgment of conviction.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Daniel R. Hawkins joined Justice Shanahan’s opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only. Justice Jennifer Brunner concurred in judgment only and stated that “manifest necessity” would allow the trial court to suspend the plea deal and proceed to a trial because of the error.

Plea to Raping Granddaughter Accepted
In 2023, a 4-year-old girl reported to her mother that Thoen, her grandfather, had raped her. Thoen confessed to conduct underlying the rape charge and was charged by complaint in the Mount Vernon Municipal Court with one count of rape of a child less than 13 years old. The matter was bound over to the Knox County Common Pleas Court. Thoen then waived his right to be indicted. He agreed to using a bill of information to plead guilty to one count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), for rape of a child under 13.

During a plea colloquy before the trial judge, Thoen was informed he faced a maximum prison term of 11 years. However, after the court accepted the plea but before sentencing, the prosecutor discovered that the charge carried a mandatory life-imprisonment term because the victim was under 10. Because the offense was punishable by life imprisonment, the prosecutor could not proceed using a bill of information and had to seek an indictment from a grand jury.

At the prosecutor’s request, the trial judge declined to sentence Thoen and dismissed the bill of information. A grand jury indicted Thoen. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and requested that the trial court dismiss the new indictment on double jeopardy grounds, arguing he could not be charged with a new offense after the trial court accepted a guilty plea to a charge for the same offense.

The trial court denied his request, and the matter moved to a bench trial. Thoen was found guilty, was sentenced to the mandatory 15 years to life in prison, and was classified as a Tier III sex offender.

Thoen appealed to the Fifth District, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Thoen appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Double Jeopardy Claim
The U.S. and Ohio constitutions provide coextensive protections against double jeopardy, including protection against a second prosecution for the same offense following a conviction, Justice Shanahan explained.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not identified the point during guilty plea proceedings when “jeopardy attaches” and a suspect faces the potential of being tried twice for the same offense. The high court has assumed jeopardy attaches at least when a defendant is sentenced on his guilty plea, but has noted that a court accepting a guilty plea is not the same as a court decision on the merits after a full trial. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 1984 Ohio v. Johnson decision, noted the purposes of double jeopardy protections are to ensure the finality of decisions and prevent “prosecutorial overreaching.”

The Supreme Court of Ohio today found the two-part framework in Johnson persuasive for determining whether jeopardy attaches when a trial court unconditionally accepts a guilty plea.  The framework considers a defendant’s legitimate expectation of finality and whether concerns of prosecutorial overreach are implicated.

The opinion noted the finality interest provides a defendant with a legitimate expectation that a criminal proceeding has reached its lawful conclusion. The Court noted those interests are strongest following an acquittal or a final judgment of conviction, which would end further prosecution.

Prosecutorial overreach arises from attempts to secure additional punishment following a conviction and sentence, the Court explained. Through a second prosecution, prosecutors can get another attempt to gather more evidence, refine their theories, or gain an unfair preview of the defense’s case, the opinion noted.

The Court addressed Thoen’s claim that accepting his guilty plea prevented the prosecution from proceeding on a new indictment for the same offense. The Court noted that accepting the plea does not have the same constitutional implications as a guilty verdict following a trial.

The offense Thoen was charged with carries a mandatory term of life imprisonment. Under Ohio law, an offense punishable by life imprisonment must be prosecuted by indictment, a requirement that cannot be waived, the opinion stated. Had the trial court entered a judgment of conviction based on the bill of information, Thoen could have challenged that judgment as voidable on direct appeal, the Court stated.

Because the prosecution used a defective charging instrument, neither Thoen nor the prosecutor could reasonably expect that the guilty plea would produce a lawful conclusion to the case. Thoen therefore had no legitimate expectation of finality, and jeopardy did not attach to his guilty plea, the Court stated.

The prosecution also did not overreach in the case, the Court found. The switch from a bill of information to an indictment did not give the prosecutor a second opportunity to gather evidence,  refine its theory of prosecution, or gain an unfair preview of the defense’s case because Thoen had not been subjected to a first trial, the opinion noted.

“The State did not seek dismissal of the bill of information to avoid an anticipated acquittal, obtain a tactical advantage, or subject Thoen to repeated attempts at a conviction,” the Court stated.

The Court affirmed the Fifth District’s judgment affirming the denial of Thoen’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

2025-0093. State v. Thoen, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3976.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.