State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh
128 Ohio St. 3d 303
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Womack was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), a felony of the third degree.
- At sentencing the court notified him of a mandatory three-year term of postrelease control, but the sentencing entry erroneously imposed five years.
- Womack received a 20-year aggregate prison term; the conviction and sentence were reviewed on direct appeal, with no further review granted by this court.
- Womack later moved for resentencing under Foster, challenging the validity of the sentencing scheme, and separately for resentencing due to the postrelease-control error.
- Judge Marsh denied the motions to compel further action and determined Womack was not entitled to a new sentencing hearing; she then corrected the postrelease-control term to three years via a nunc pro tunc entry.
- Womack filed a mandamus petition in the court of appeals seeking ruling on his motions and additional relief; the court of appeals dismissed the petition as moot and on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus was proper after the judge corrected the entry | Womack argues mandamus should compel ruling or further relief. | Marsh contends the issue is moot once she ruled and corrected the entry. | Mootness barred mandamus relief; petition dismissed. |
| Whether Womack is entitled to a new sentencing hearing for postrelease control | Womack sought a new sentencing hearing due to postrelease-control error. | Marsh argued no new hearing was required because the error was clerical and corrected nunc pro tunc. | No new hearing required; clerical correction authorized. |
| Authority to correct clerical errors in sentencing entries via nunc pro tunc | Womack claimed no authority to amend the entry after judgment. | Marsh relied on Crim.R. 36 and precedents permitting nunc pro tunc corrections. | Trial court could correct clerical error nunc pro tunc and relate the correction back. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (de novo sentencing for pre-July 11, 2006 postrelease-control errors)
- State v. Cruzado, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (clerical errors may be corrected; relates back to original judgment)
- State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 123 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-5259, 915 N.E.2d 1223 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (mandamus cannot compel already performed acts; clerical corrections allowed)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (clerical-error correction and nunc pro tunc concepts)
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 1215 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (mandamus elements and relief standards)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (standard for dismissing mandamus under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 874 N.E.2d 516 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (judicial notice and summary-judgment treatment in mandamus actions)