State ex rel. Priest v. Dankof
2014 Ohio 540
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Relator Gregory L. Priest sought a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Steven Dankof to issue a final journalized judgment of conviction in Montgomery C.P. No. 09-CR-3231.
- Priest contended the original Termination Entry (Aug. 24, 2010) lacked the sentencing judge’s signature (it showed an illegible mark), so it was not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 and Crim.R. 32(C).
- A nunc pro tunc entry (Jan. 14, 2011) was later filed to correct omission of Priest’s manner of conviction; it was signed by Judge Mary Wiseman “for Judge A.J. Wagner.”
- Priest argued the nunc pro tunc was also not final because it was not signed by the sentencing judge personally, and that the original entry thus remained nonfinal.
- The respondent moved to dismiss; this court reviewed whether the August 24, 2010 entry and the January 14, 2011 nunc pro tunc satisfied requirements for a final judgment of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Aug. 24, 2010 judgment was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 / Crim.R. 32(C) | Priest: entry lacks a judge’s signature (illegible mark), so not final | Respondent: a signature (though arguably illegible) appears and Priest could have appealed | Held: The Aug. 24, 2010 entry is a final appealable judgment; illegibility alone does not nullify the entry and Priest had an appellate remedy (he appealed and conviction was affirmed) |
| Whether the Jan. 14, 2011 nunc pro tunc entry created a new final order or cured signature/clerical defects | Priest: nunc pro tunc was not signed by the sentencing judge and thus insufficient | Respondent: nunc pro tunc properly corrected clerical omission and may be signed by another judge on behalf of sentencing judge | Held: The nunc pro tunc corrected a clerical omission and is not a new final order; it satisfies the signature requirement when signed on behalf of the sentencing judge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (sets elements of a final judgment of conviction and holds a Crim.R. 32(C) nunc pro tunc correcting a clerical omission is not a new final order)
- State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 (2011) (failure to include manner of conviction is a clerical omission subject to nunc pro tunc correction and does not render a judgment void)