2012 Ohio 255
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- John Adams was convicted by a jury of murder, aggravated burglary, and two kidnapping counts with firearm specs.
- The trial court originally sentenced Adams but relied on unconstitutional R.C. 2929.14(B)/(E)(4) per Foster, prompting a vacation of the sentence.
- This Court remanded for resentencing and directed the entry to reflect the court’s actual findings, not erroneous language.
- The State prepared a resentencing entry, which included improper Foster-contrary language about consecutive sentences and Adams’ history of criminal conduct.
- On remand, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the clerical errors and omitting improper language.
- The Fourth District affirmed the nunc pro tunc entry as compliant with Foster and Kalish, and Adams’ new sentence was upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the resentencing violated Foster and Kalish standards | Adams argued the court relied on improper findings | Adams asserts improper findings about history and consecutive sentences | No; nunc pro tunc entry reflected proper findings and Foster-compliant rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences; two-step analysis)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (unconstitutional application of consecutive-sentencing provisions)
- State v. Adams, 2009-Ohio-6491 (Scioto App. Nos. 04CA2959 & 05CA2986) (Adams I; remand for resentencing due to Foster issues)
- Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011-Ohio-229) (crystallizes clerical-error nunc pro tunc correction authority)