State v. Peck

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of Kyle L. Peck’s pro se motion to compel specific performance of a plea agreement. The court held that the plea agreement did not constitute a joint sentencing agreement and that Peck’s claims concerning the agreement and alleged breach were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal.

Holdings

1. The agreement was not a joint sentencing agreement. A plea agreement negotiates the plea, not the sentence, which is determined by statute and may require the trial court to exercise discretion.
2. Peck's claims concerning the alleged violation or meaning of the plea agreement were barred by res judicata because the plea agreement was part of the record and the claims could have been raised on direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plea agreement was a joint sentencing agreement that required the trial court to impose a particular term of imprisonment.
2. Whether Peck's claims that the prosecution breached the plea agreement and that the agreement was vague or ambiguous were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed