{¶ 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.

{¶ 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-Ohio-279, 2004 WL 103016; State v. Plassman, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-07-036, 2008-Ohio-3842, 2008 WL 2939470. 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, 2010 WL 3328660, ¶ 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 v. Shiplevy, 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 383, 667 N.E.2d 1194 (1996).

{¶ 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, 2008 WL 2939470, ¶ 24. Plassman failed to appeal that holding to this court. Thus, the issues he *16 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.

Writ denied.