Plassman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In 1995, Todd Plassman pled guilty to several counts of rape. Plassman was sentenced to indefinite terms of nine to twenty-five years, to be served concurrently but consecutively to his sentence imposed in another case. Over the years, Plassman filed, unsuccessfully, a variety of actions attempting to enforce the alleged limit on his sentence. In this instant case, Plassman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the prosecutor and judge in his 1995 case agreed off the record that he would serve no more than a ten-year term of imprisonment if he pled guilty. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the issues Plassman raised were not only res judicata but were barred from consideration in habeas corpus due to the availability of other remedies.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Plassman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4033.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-4033 PLASSMAN v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Plassman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4033.] Habeas corpus Res judicata bars issuance of writ Relator had adequate remedy by way of appeal Writ denied. (No. 2013-1552 Submitted June 10, 2014 Decided September 23, 2014.) IN HABEAS CORPUS. _____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In 1995, relator, Todd Plassman, pled guilty to several counts of rape and was sentenced to indefinite terms of 9 to 25 years, to be served concurrently, but consecutively to his sentence imposed in another case. Plassman alleges that the prosecutor and the judge in his 1995 rape case verbally agreed off the record that he would serve no more than ten years in prison if he pled guilty. He asserts that he would not have pled guilty without such a promise. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} However, his claim is procedurally barred. Plassman has filed a variety of actions over the years in an attempt to enforce the alleged limit on his sentence, some of which were decided on the merits but never appealed to this court. See, e.g., State v. Plassman, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-03-017, 2004-Ohio279; State v. Plassman, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-07-036, 2008-Ohio-3842. These actions not only render the case res judicata, but demonstrate that he had adequate remedies at law, precluding habeas relief. {¶ 3} A prisoner seeking release is not entitled to the writ when an appeal or other adequate remedy at law exists. Billiter v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426, 2013-Ohio-1719, 988 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 8. {¶ 4} Habeas corpus does not lie to challenge an alleged breach of a plea agreement, because other remedies are available. Arnett v. Sheets, 4th Dist. Ross No. 10CA3156, 2010-Ohio-3985, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108 Ohio St.3d 183, 2006-Ohio-548, 842 N.E.2d 51, at ¶ 5. Here, as in Arnett and Rowe, Plassman had alternative remedies available to him, such as filing a motion with the sentencing court to withdraw his guilty plea or to enforce the plea agreement. Therefore, habeas corpus is inappropriate. Agee v. Russell, 92 Ohio St.3d 540, 544, 751 N.E.2d 1043 (2001), citing Gaskins at 383. {¶ 5} In addition, Plassman s numerous motions and other attempts to enforce the plea agreement, some of which were decided on the merits, mean that any further actions on those arguments are barred by res judicata. In particular, the Sixth District specifically held that [Plassman s] argument of a ten-year sentence justifying warranting a Crim.R. 32.1 withdrawal of plea fails on its merits given the contents of the record of sentencing. 2008-Ohio-3842, ¶ 24. Plassman failed to appeal that holding to this court. Thus, the issues he raises are not only res judicata, they are barred from consideration in habeas corpus due to the availability of other remedies. {¶ 6} We deny the writ. 2 January Term, 2014 Writ denied. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O NEILL, JJ., concur. ____________________ Todd Plassman, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. _________________________ 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
