State v. Darmour

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Darmour

529 N.E.2d 208, 38 Ohio App. 3d 160, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10652

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1987

Docket53670 and 53703

StatusPublished

Cited by51 cases

This text of 529 N.E.2d 208 (State v. Darmour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Darmour, 529 N.E.2d 208, 38 Ohio App. 3d 160, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10652 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. App. R. 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. Appellant Harry Darmour contends the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing a sentence greater than that forming the inducement for appellant to plead guilty. Appellant was sentenced to three and one-half years while the state had agreed with appellant to ask the court to impose a two-year sentence.

Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled for the reason that the trial court has sound discretion to implement a plea bargain agreement. See Akron v. Ragsdale (1978), 61 Ohio App. 2d 107, 15 O.O. 3d 107, 399 N.E. 2d 119, paragraph one of the syllabus. No abuse of discretion is present when the trial court forewarns a defendant that it will not consider itself bound by any sentencing agreement and defendant fails to change his plea. See March 26, 1987 record, at 12-13.

The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Pryatel, P.J., Ann McManamon and Patton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. App. R. 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. Appellant Harry Darmour contends the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing a sentence greater than that forming the inducement for appellant to plead guilty. Appellant was sentenced to three and one-half years while the state had agreed with appellant to ask the court to impose a two-year sentence.

Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled for the reason that the trial court has sound discretion to implement a plea bargain agreement. See Akron v. Ragsdale (1978), 61 Ohio App. 2d 107, 15 O.O. 3d 107, 399 N.E. 2d 119, paragraph one of the syllabus. No abuse of discretion is present when the trial court forewarns a defendant that it will not consider itself bound by any sentencing agreement and defendant fails to change his plea. See March 26, 1987 record, at 12-13.

The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Pryatel, P.J., Ann McManamon and Patton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 N.E.2d 208, 38 Ohio App. 3d 160, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-darmour-ohioctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack