2015 Ohio 5276
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Arthur Schlichter pleaded guilty in state court (multiple theft and RICO-related counts) and entered a written plea agreement with the State on Sept. 15, 2011 specifying a total state sentence of 10 years to run concurrently with any federal sentence.
- Paragraphs 3–4 of the plea agreement stated the State "will file a detainer" with the Bureau of Prisons if the defendant "receives a federal sentence that is less than ten years," and that the 10-year state term would run concurrently with the start of any federal sentence.
- The state court imposed the 10-year state sentence on Oct. 5, 2011, with sentence to commence when defendant reported to federal BOP.
- The federal court later sentenced Schlichter to 127 months (longer than 10 years) on May 4, 2012; the prosecutor then sent a March 25, 2013 letter to the federal facility lodging a detainer and advising the BOP of the State’s intent to secure the balance of the 10-year state term if federal custody ended before the state term’s expiration.
- Schlichter moved for specific performance to require the State to withdraw the detainer, arguing paragraph 3 permitted a detainer only where the defendant received a federal sentence shorter than ten years. The trial court denied the motion; Schlichter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Schlichter's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a detainer breached the plea agreement | The agreement contemplated filing a detainer to secure full 10 years if federal release preceded completion; nothing prohibits filing a detainer in other circumstances | Paragraph 3 limits State’s authority to file a detainer only when defendant "receives" a federal sentence less than ten years | Court affirmed: plea agreement did not prohibit the State from filing a detainer; filing was not a breach |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bethel, 110 Ohio St.3d 416 (2006) (Ohio applies contract principles to plea-agreement interpretation)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (breached plea agreements may require specific performance)
- State v. Butts, 112 Ohio App.3d 683 (Eighth Dist. 1996) (specific performance as remedy for breached plea agreements)
- United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 1994) (government is bound only by promises made in plea agreements)
- United States v. Fentress, 792 F.2d 461 (4th Cir. 1986) (same contract-law approach to plea promises)
- State v. Gilbert, 143 Ohio St.3d 150 (2014) (jurisdictional limits after sentencing discussed by the State as an alternative argument)