[Cite as State v. Pizarro, 2014-Ohio-5344.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101546 

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

MIGUEL PIZARRO

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-07-495634-D 

BEFORE: Jones, P.J., Keough, J., and Stewart, J. 

 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 4, 2014 
FOR APPELLANT 

Miguel Pizarro 

Inmate No. A-533-493 

Grafton Correctional Institution 

2500 South Avon Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Diane Smilanick 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Miguel Pizarro appeals from the judgment denying his motion 

for specific performance of breached contract. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} In 2007, Pizarro was charged with aggravated murder with one- and three-year 

firearm specifications. He pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter with a three-year firearm 

specification. The trial court sentenced him to ten years on the underlying charge, consecutive 

to three years on the firearm specification. The sentence was also ordered to be served 

consecutively to a kidnapping conviction in another case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-500632; the 

kidnapping conviction involved the same victim as the involuntary manslaughter conviction. 

This court upheld the conviction in that case. State v. Pizarro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93694, 

2010-Ohio-4007; see also State v. Pizarro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100564, 2014-Ohio-1734 

(denying postconviction relief). 

{¶3} In 2014, Pizarro filed a motion for specific performance of breached contract that 

the state opposed. The trial court denied Pizarro’s motion. Pizarro now appeals, raising the 

following assignment of error for our review: 

The trial court disregarded mandatory provisions of R.C. 2941.25 and breached 

the contractual plea agreement between [the] state of Ohio and appellant where a 

deviation from mandatory provisions of statute rendered [the] sentence contrary to 

law and not authorize[d] by law and appellant suffered prejudice when [the] trial 

court applied res judicata to deny his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for specific 

performance of breached contract. 

{¶4} It is Pizarro’s contention that his plea agreement was breached because the trial 

court failed to address whether the involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping charges were allied 

offenses. 

{¶5} Res judicata is the “‘[r]ule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent 

jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to 
them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or 

cause of action.’” Holzemer v. Urbanski, 86 Ohio St.3d 129, 132, 712 N.E.2d 713 (1999), 

quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1305 (6th Ed.1990). In the criminal law context, the Ohio 

Supreme Court has recognized that the doctrine of res judicata bars claims that were raised or 

could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. Davis, 119 Ohio St.3d 422, 2008-Ohio-4608, 

894 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 6. 

{¶6} Pizarro’s claimed error could have been raised in his direct appeal, but was not. He 

is therefore now barred under the doctrine of res judicata from raising it here. 

{¶7} Res judicata aside, there is no merit to the claimed error. “When the plea 

agreement is silent on the issue of allied offenses of similar import, * * * the trial court is 

obligated under R.C. 2941.25 to determine whether the offenses are allied, and if they are, to 

convict the defendant of only one offense.” State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 

2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 29. In line with Underwood, this court has recognized that a 

stipulation by the parties is sufficient to resolve the issue of merger. State v. Rogers, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 98292, 2013-Ohio-3235, 994 N.E.2d 499, ¶ 40-44. 

{¶8} The plea agreement here is not silent. The record specifically reflects that the state 

and Pizarro agreed that the “involuntary manslaughter and the kidnapping are not allied offenses 

of similar import.” 

{¶9} In light of the above, Pizarro’s sole assignment of error is without merit and 

overruled. 

{¶10} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there 

were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas 
court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and 

MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR 

KEYWORDS: