State v. Jacobs

[Cite as State v. Jacobs, 

.]




                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      LUCAS COUNTY


 State of Ohio/City of Maumee                 Court of Appeals No. L-24-1149

         Appellee                             Trial Court No. 23CRB0868

 v.

 Rayna Jacobs                                 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant
                                              Decided: December 6, 2024

                                             …

        Daniel Arnold, Prosecuting Attorney, City of Maumee, for appellee.

        Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

                                             …
        SULEK, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Rayna Jacobs, appeals the Maumee Municipal Court’s May 23,

2024 judgment which, she argues, contains a clerical error. The State concedes the error.
                                               I. Facts

         {¶ 2} On November 5, 2023, Maumee Police filed a sworn complaint and

summons charging Jacobs with theft, R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). The complaint listed the

victim as the Kroger store, in Maumee, Ohio. On May 23, 2024, Jacobs pleaded no

contest to attempted theft. The trial court found Jacobs guilty and sentenced her to 90

days at CCNO, 70 suspended with 20 days of electronic home monitoring, one year of

probation, a $100 fine plus costs, and she was ordered “to have no contact with Meijer.”

         {¶ 3} The May 23, 2024 sentencing judgment entry similarly ordered that Jacobs

have no contact with Meijer. This appeal followed.

                                      II. Assignment of Error

         {¶ 4} Jacobs raises the following assignment of error:

                1. The court committed plain error when it ordered appellant to have

         no contact with Meijer, when the victim in this matter was Kroger.

                                         III. Analysis

         {¶ 5} Jacobs’ sole assignment of error claims that the trial court committed plain

error when it ordered her to have no contact with Meijer, not Kroger. The State concedes

error.

         {¶ 6} On review, the court agrees that there is an inconsistency between the victim

in the complaint, Kroger, and the trial court’s order that Jacobs have no contact with

Meijer. Accordingly, Jacobs’ assignment of error is well-taken.




2.
                                       IV. Conclusion

         {¶ 7} The May 23, 2024 judgment of the Maumee Municipal Court is vacated and

the matter is remanded to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the no

contact order from Meijer to Kroger. Pursuant to App.R. 24, the State is ordered to pay

the costs of this appeal.




       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.


 Christine E. Mayle, J.
                                                                   JUDGE

 Myron C. Duhart, J.
                                                                   JUDGE

 Charles E. Sulek, P.J.
 CONCUR.                                                           JUDGE




          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.




3.