Nunc pro tunc clerical error sentence. Trial court made a clerical error in a sentencing entry that should be corrected with a nunc pro tunc judgment entry reflecting the actual sentence imposed on the defendant at the sentencing hearing.
.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 111500
v. :
ARTO D. GREEN, II, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 3, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-21-657044-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Morgan Austin, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
Michael V. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defender, for
appellant.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
Defendant-appellant, Arto D. Green II (“Green”), appeals his conviction
and claims the following error:
The docket entry detailing Mr. Green’s sentence is incorrect and must
be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect the actual sentence.
Because the sentencing entry does not reflect the sentence announced
in open court, we remand the case to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc
judgment entry setting forth the actual sentence imposed on Green at the sentencing
hearing.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Green was charged with two counts of felonious assault in violation of
R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(B)(1), one
count of child endangering in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), one count of having
weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), and two counts of
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). He pleaded guilty to one count of
child endangering, as indicted in Count 5, and one count of having weapons while
under disability, as amended in Count 4. The remaining counts were nolled. At the
time of the plea, Green understood that he was on postrelease control and that the
court could impose the remainder of the postrelease control as prison time that
would run consecutive to any underlying sentence in the present case.
The court sentenced Green in open court at the sentencing hearing as
follows:
I’m going to sentence you to 36 months at Lorain Correctional Institute
on the having weapon while under disability count to run concurrently
with 180 days on the child endangering count.
Additionally, I find you to be in violation of your post-release control in
Case 566481. I’m going to order that you serve a sanction in prison for
violating your post-release control in that case. That sanction will be
the greater of 1 year or the remaining time period of post-release
control in Case 566481. By operation of law, that will run consecutive
to the 36 months that you received in this case.
(Tr. 44-45.)
The sentencing entry subsequently posted on the docket states that
Green’s 180-day jail sentence is “to be served prior to and consecutive with 36
months on Count 5” for a total prison sentence of 42 months. Green now appeals
his sentence, arguing that the sentence outlined in the sentencing entry must be
corrected to reflect the sentence proclaimed in open court and on the record at the
sentencing hearing.
II. Law and Analysis
In his sole assignment of error, Green argues the trial court misstated
the sentence it imposed on him in the sentencing entry and contends the error
should be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry. The state concedes this error.
A nunc pro tunc judgment entry may be used for the limited purpose of
correcting a clerical error in a judgment or order so that the record reflects what the
court actually did or decided. State v. Aarons, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110313, 2021-
Ohio-3671, ¶ 26. See also Crim.R. 36 (“Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or
other parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission,
may be corrected by the court at any time.”).
A clerical error or mistake refers to “‘a mistake or omission, mechanical
in nature and apparent on the record, which does not involve a legal decision or
judgment.’” State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski,
. A nunc pro tunc entry cannot be used to resentence a
defendant or to impose a sanction that the court did not impose as part of the
sentence at the sentencing hearing, but it can be used to correct a sentencing entry
to reflect the sentence the trial court actually imposed on a defendant at a sentencing
hearing. Aarons at ¶ 26, citing State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109963, 2021-
Ohio-3099, ¶ 14. See also State v. Ferrell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85821, 2005-
Ohio-5992, ¶ 21.
The sentencing entry in this case contains an obvious clerical error. The
trial court stated on the record that Green’s 180-day sentence on the child
endangering count was to be served concurrently with the 36-month prison term on
the having weapons while under disability count. Yet, the sentencing entry provides
that Green must serve these sentences consecutively. This type of clerical mistake
may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc judgment entry.
Therefore, the sole assignment of error is sustained and the case is
remanded to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc judgment entry reflecting the
actual sentence imposed on Green at the sentencing hearing.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case
remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
