State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge
128 Ohio St. 3d 236
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Smith and Allen were convicted in 1994 of sex offenses; sentencing entries did not specify conviction by jury and lacked Crim.R. 32(C) detail.
- In 2009 Judge Burge vacated convictions and sentences and later entered judgments of acquittal under Crim.R. 29(C).
- Cordray and Will sought writs of prohibition to compel vacating Smith’s acquittal and return to prison; Allen’s acquittal had already been vacated by the court of appeals.
- Court of Appeals initially dismissed Smith’s prohibition claim for failure to state a claim, but vacated Allen’s acquittal while upholding lack of jurisdiction issue for Smith.
- The issue before the Ohio Supreme Court is whether Judge Burge patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to grant acquittals and whether a corrected Crim.R. 32(C) entry was the proper remedy.
- Court holds that Burge lacked jurisdiction to vacate Smith’s convictions and that the proper remedy was a corrected sentencing entry, not a new acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burge patently unambiguously lacked jurisdiction | Smith's entry met Crim.R. 32(C) and jurisdiction not lacking | Burge could issue nunc pro tunc correction | Burge lacked jurisdiction to vacate; proceed to corrected entry |
| Crim.R. 32(C) sufficiency of Smith’s sentencing entry | Entry complied with 32(C) as final order | Entry failed to show jury verdict; Baker requires disclosure | Entry did not comply; required corrected entry reflecting proper conviction |
| Remedy for Crim.R. 32(C) defect | Nunc pro tunc correction available | Correction is proper remedy, not new sentencing hearing | Correction via a corrected sentencing entry is proper remedy |
| Effect of incorrect Crim.R. 32(C) on finality and appealability | Defects did not nullify judgments | Noncompliance affects finality and appealability | Noncompliance is a clerical error corrected by entry; does not nullify proceeding |
| Allen’s acquittal posture and appeal | Court erred in vacating Allen’s acquittal | Allen’s acquittal was appropriately vacated due to Crim.R. 29(C) status | Court of Appeals’ handling of Allen remains part of the prohibition dispute; Smith decision decisive |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (defines Crim.R. 32(C) articulation requirements for final orders)
- State ex rel. Barr v. Sutula, 126 Ohio St.3d 193 (2010) (crucial distinction on Crim.R. 32(C) compliance in sentencing entries)
- State ex rel. Alicea v. Krichbaum, 126 Ohio St.3d 194 (2010) (remedy for Crim.R. 32(C) deficiency is a revised sentencing entry)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535 (2008) (requires sentencing entry to reflect proper Crim.R. 32(C) compliance)
- Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (2002) (prohibition standards for patent lack of jurisdiction)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (jurisdiction and invalidity concepts in sentencing and judgments)