State ex rel. Snead v. Ferenc
138 Ohio St. 3d 136
| Ohio | 2014Background
- In 2002 Robert A. Snead pled guilty in Clermont County to multiple felonies; the common pleas court issued a sentencing entry on March 11, 2002 imposing a 21-year term.
- Snead later challenged that March 11 entry as defective under Crim.R. 32(C) because it did not state the manner of conviction.
- Snead argued that determining finality required consulting an earlier February 27, 2002 docket entry, which he said violated State v. Baker.
- In April 2013 the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment entry amending the March 11, 2002 entry to state the manner of conviction (guilty plea).
- Snead filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in the court of appeals; the Twelfth District dismissed the petition as moot (mandamus) and as having an adequate remedy by appeal (prohibition).
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the original entry contained the Crim.R. 32(C) elements and that omissions of manner of conviction are clerical and correctable nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 11, 2002 sentencing entry was a final, appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) | Snead: entry was defective because it omitted the manner of conviction; finality required reading two entries (violates Baker) | State: the March 11 entry contained the required Crim.R. 32(C) elements and was final | Held: March 11 entry satisfied Crim.R. 32(C) finality elements; omission of manner did not defeat finality |
| Whether omission of manner of conviction is clerical and correctable by nunc pro tunc | Snead: manner omission voids entry; nunc pro tunc cannot cure a void Crim.R. 32(C) error | State: omission is clerical error; trial court may correct by nunc pro tunc | Held: omission is clerical per State v. Lester and may be corrected nunc pro tunc |
| Whether the nunc pro tunc entry rendered mandamus moot | Snead: nunc pro tunc did not cure defect; mandamus still needed | State: nunc pro tunc corrected omission, so mandamus unnecessary | Held: Mandamus claim moot because trial court performed the corrective act |
| Whether prohibition was available to challenge the nunc pro tunc entry | Snead: prohibition necessary because nunc pro tunc was improper and original entry void | State: Snead had an adequate remedy by direct appeal | Held: Prohibition denied; appeal is adequate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 958 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2011) (manner of conviction omission is clerical; Crim.R. 32(C) finality requires fact of conviction, sentence, judge's signature, and clerk's timestamp)
- State v. Baker, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (addresses when multiple documents may be consulted to determine finality)
- State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 943 N.E.2d 535 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R. 32(C) errors deemed clerical and correctable nunc pro tunc)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 943 N.E.2d 1010 (Ohio 2011) (mandamus will not compel performance of an act already performed)
- State v. Brown, 569 N.E.2d 1068 (Ohio App. 1989) (illustrative precedent where failure to dispose of all counts defeated finality)