Title: State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-3674.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. DURAN, APPELLANT, v. KELSEY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-3674.] 
Sentencing — Plea bargaining — Recommendation of sentence by prosecutor not 
binding on court. 
(No. 2005-0017 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided August 3, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wood County,  
No. WD-04-077, 2004-Ohio-6464. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for writs of 
mandamus and prohibition to compel a trial court judge to correct a criminal 
sentence based on a plea agreement.  We affirm. 
{¶ 2} In 2000, appellant, Augusto Duran, entered into a plea agreement 
with the prosecutor in which Duran agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of 
cocaine possession in exchange for the prosecutor’s recommendation that Duran 
receive a five-year prison sentence.  In the plea agreement, Duran specified that 
he understood that “any recommendations are not binding on the Court” and that 
the maximum penalty for the charge of cocaine possession was two to eight years.  
On August 2, 2000, appellee, Wood County Court of Common Pleas Judge Reeve 
Kelsey, convicted Duran of possession of cocaine upon his guilty plea and 
sentenced him to six years in prison instead of the five years recommended by the 
prosecutor. 
{¶ 3} In November 2004, Duran filed a petition for writs of mandamus 
and prohibition in the Court of Appeals for Wood County to compel Judge Kelsey 
to correct his sentence to five years instead of six years based on the plea 
agreement.  Duran claimed that Judge Kelsey had disregarded the binding plea 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
agreement.  On November 24, 2004, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed 
Duran’s petition. 
{¶ 4} For the following reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed 
Duran’s petition. 
{¶ 5} First, Duran has “an adequate legal remedy to rectify any alleged 
breach of the plea agreement by filing a motion with the sentencing court to either 
withdraw his previous guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 or specifically enforce 
the agreement.”  State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 
491, 633 N.E.2d 1128; State ex rel. Sansom v. Wilkinson (Mar. 27, 2002), 
Cuyahoga App. No. 80743, 2002 WL 511516, * 2. 
{¶ 6} Second, as the court of appeals determined, Judge Kelsey did not 
breach the plea agreement.  He did not agree to sentence Duran to the five-year 
prison term recommended by the prosecutor.  The agreement that Duran signed 
acknowledged that Judge Kelsey was not bound by the prosecutor’s 
recommendation.  “A trial court does not err by imposing a sentence greater than 
‘that forming the inducement for the defendant to plead guilty when the trial court 
forewarns the defendant of the applicable penalties, including the possibility of 
imposing a greater sentence than that recommended by the prosecutor.’ ”  State v. 
Buchanan, 154 Ohio App.3d 250, 2003-Ohio-4772, 796 N.E.2d 1003, ¶ 13, 
quoting State v. Pettiford (Apr. 22, 2002), Fayette App. No. CA2001-08-014, 
2002 WL 652371, * 3. 
{¶ 7} Finally, the court of appeals did not err in sua sponte dismissing 
Duran’s petition.  “ ‘Sua sponte dismissal without notice is appropriate only if the 
complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts 
alleged in the complaint.’ ”  State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276, 
2002-Ohio-6323, 779 N.E.2d 223, ¶ 11, quoting McAuley v. Smith (1998), 82 
Ohio St.3d 393, 395, 696 N.E.2d 572.  Duran obviously cannot prevail in 
mandamus or prohibition on the facts alleged in his petition.  And Duran’s 
January Term, 2005 
3 
reliance on R.C. 2731.10 is misplaced because no alternative writ was issued by 
the court.  See R.C. 2731.10 (“If no answer is made to an alternative writ of 
mandamus, a peremptory mandamus must be allowed against the defendant”). 
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Augusto Duran, pro se. 
 
Raymond Fischer, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jacqueline M. 
Kirian, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________