Background
Darrol Alexander II was indicted on one count each of felonious assault and domestic violence while he was on post-release control for a prior felony. Under a plea agreement, Alexander pleaded guilty to domestic violence, and the State agreed to dismiss the felonious-assault charge, recommend community control, and join in asking the trial court not to revoke his post-release control.
At sentencing, the prosecutor said the State was adhering to its recommendation in the plea agreement and that nothing in the presentence investigation report had changed its position. The prosecutor explained that the recommendation reflected the victim’s wishes and the State’s view that counseling and vocational training would benefit Alexander. The trial court nevertheless found a post-release-control violation and imposed 18 months for domestic violence, consecutive to 12 months for the violation, for an aggregate 30-month prison term.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District held that the State did not breach the plea agreement. Although the prosecutor did not separately repeat at sentencing the parties’ request that the court refrain from finding a post-release-control violation, the prosecutor expressly stated that the State was adhering to the plea agreement. The agreement’s terms, including the joint request concerning post-release control, had been placed on the record at the plea hearing.
The court distinguished Santobello v. New York, where a prosecutor affirmatively requested the maximum sentence despite an agreement to make no sentencing recommendation. Here, the prosecutor neither repudiated the agreement nor advocated a position inconsistent with it. The court therefore overruled Alexander’s sole assignment of error and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A prosecutor did not breach a plea agreement by failing to restate each term at sentencing after expressly confirming adherence to the agreement already placed on the record.
- The prosecutor’s sentencing remarks did not contradict the promised recommendation or the parties’ request concerning post-release control.
- Because no breach occurred, Alexander was not entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement or an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that Ohio courts may evaluate the State’s sentencing remarks in the context of the entire record when deciding whether a plea agreement was breached. An express statement that the State is standing by an agreement may satisfy its obligation even when the prosecutor does not repeat every previously recorded term.
The opinion also illustrates the distinction between failing to recite a term verbatim and affirmatively taking a position inconsistent with a prosecutorial promise—the latter being the type of conduct that triggered a remedy in Santobello.