In State v. Martello, 97 Ohio St.3d 398, 2002 Ohio 6661, 780 N.E.2d 250, the defendant was serving post-release control arising from burglary and theft convictions. He had completely served his entire six-month prison term. He failed to report to his parole officer and was charged with escape under R.C. 2921.34(A)(1). He was also ordered by the Adult Parole Authority to serve 91 days in prison for violating the terms of post-release control. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, and the motion was granted. The state appealed, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed on appeal, but was reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court. The Supreme Court explained: "It has long been recognized that double jeopardy principles do not prohibit the imposition of every additional sanction that could be labeled 'punishment' in common parlance." Id. at P8. The Court analyzed whether the 91 day sentence could be considered "criminal punishment" for purposes of double jeopardy analysis. The Court concluded that any punishment imposed by the Adult Parole Authority was civil in nature and amounted to nothing more than the reinstatement of punishment already imposed as part of the original criminal prosecution. Id. at P26. Since it was only a reinstatement of the original punishment, it did not constitute an additional punishment in a second proceeding by which double jeopardy could attach. The Court concluded that the longstanding rule in both Ohio and in federal courts was that a criminal defendant could be convicted of the new charge of escape regardless of any decision by a parole authority to reinstate the original sentence or impose additional administrative sanctions for the parole violation. Id. at P38.