State ex rel. Winfree v. McDonald (Slip Opinion)
147 Ohio St. 3d 428
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Edward A. Winfree pleaded no-contest in 2011 in Lucas County to two counts of vehicular assault; judgment sentenced him to eight years and ordered restitution “in an amount to be determined at a hearing.”
- Winfree did not timely appeal the 2011 sentencing entry; a delayed appeal was denied. In 2014 he moved in the trial court to correct a "void and illegal sentence," arguing the sentencing entry was not final because restitution amount was unspecified; the trial court denied that motion.
- Winfree petitioned the Sixth District for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel Judge McDonald to hold a de novo resentencing hearing and to enter a final, appealable sentencing entry. The court issued an alternative writ and the judge moved to dismiss.
- The court of appeals held the 2011 entry was not a final, appealable order because it failed to specify the restitution amount, denied Winfree’s request for a de novo resentencing hearing, and ordered the trial court to issue a Crim.R. 32(C)-compliant sentencing entry. The court suggested either omitting restitution via a nunc pro tunc entry or holding a limited resentencing to set restitution.
- The trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order omitting the restitution language. Winfree appealed the court of appeals’ denial of a de novo resentencing hearing to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winfree is entitled to a de novo resentencing hearing to correct incomplete restitution language | Winfree: sentencing entry left restitution unresolved so he must get a de novo resentencing hearing | Judge/State: remedy is correction of the sentencing entry, not a full de novo resentencing | Court: No. Winfree failed to show a clear legal right to a de novo resentencing hearing; revised entry is the proper remedy |
| Whether appellate court’s suggestion to use a nunc pro tunc entry is appealable by Winfree | Winfree: court of appeals erred in suggesting nunc pro tunc; he challenges that remedy | Judge/State: suggestion exceeded relief sought and was dicta | Court: Winfree lacks standing on that dicta; the nunc pro tunc comment is not binding and is outside scope of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus requires clear legal right, clear legal duty, lack of adequate remedy and proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Alicea v. Krichbaum, 126 Ohio St.3d 194 (2010) (remedy for failure to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) is a revised sentencing entry, not a new hearing)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535 (2008) (same principle: correct the entry rather than order de novo resentencing)
- Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc., 70 Ohio St.3d 281 (1994) (statements beyond the scope of the holding are dicta and not binding)
- State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown, 75 Ohio St.3d 618 (1996) (only a party aggrieved by a final order may appeal)
- Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 140 Ohio St. 160 (1942) (appeals only to correct errors injuriously affecting the appellant)