In re C.N.
2019 Ohio 179
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile C.N. was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and two counts of robbery.
- At the dispositional hearing (May 17, 2018) the juvenile court found C.N. a serious youthful offender and committed him to DYS for minimum three years to his 21st birthday for each count, then ordered the offenses to merge into the kidnapping count.
- The court also ordered an eight-year ODRC commitment suspended upon successful completion of the juvenile disposition.
- The written journal entry, however, incorrectly recorded separate concurrent juvenile dispositions for all four counts rather than reflecting merger into the kidnapping count.
- The state conceded the journal entry was inconsistent with the oral ruling; C.N. appealed asking either correction by nunc pro tunc or merger relief under double jeopardy.
- The court found the discrepancy to be a clerical error and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to make the journal reflect the oral disposition and merged offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court's journal entry accurately reflects the oral dispositional ruling | C.N. argued the entry misstated the court’s ruling and sought correction or merger | State conceded the journal entry was incorrect and agreed a nunc pro tunc correction was appropriate | Court held the journal entry was a clerical error and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the record |
| Whether offenses should be merged as allied offenses (double jeopardy issue) | C.N. argued the offenses had the same import and should be merged under double jeopardy principles | State did not contest correction of the clerical error; merger dispute was rendered unnecessary by remand for nunc pro tunc | Court did not decide merits of merger claim; remanded to correct entry to reflect that robbery/aggravated robbery were merged into kidnapping |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Worcester v. Donnellon, 49 Ohio St.3d 117 (1990) (journal entries must accurately reflect court proceedings)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (definition of clerical mistake versus legal decision)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (nunc pro tunc may make the record reflect the truth of acts previously performed)
- In re A.G., 148 Ohio St.3d 188 (2016) (standards for allied offenses/merger)
- In re J.T., 85 N.E.3d 763 (2017) (application of Crim.R. 36 and nunc pro tunc correction in juvenile context)