State v. Andrasak
958 N.E.2d 594
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Medina County Grand Jury indicted Andrasak on drug abuse and drug trafficking offenses on Sept. 24, 2009.
- Andrasak pleaded guilty on Feb. 10, 2010, leading to a presentence investigation and sentencing.
- March 22, 2010 sentence imposed five years of community control, with no contact with codefendants, 180 days in jail, and six-month license suspension.
- Andrasak appealed, challenging the no-contact orders with her husband and son as improper.
- Nunc pro tunc entry later added the son’s name to the no-contact list, which conflicted with sentencing as actually decided.
- Court held partial reversal: no-contact with the husband sustained as error not clearly shown; no-contact with the son reversed due to improper nunc pro tunc modification and lack of presence at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of no-contact with husband order | Andrasak argues no-contact with husband infringes constitutional rights. | State defends court’s discretion under probation conditions. | Partially sustained; error not clearly shown; plain error not established on record. |
| No-contact with son and nunc pro tunc addition | Son Nathaniel’s name added without proper procedure or presence at sentencing. | Nunc pro tunc entry properly recorded court’s decision. | Nunc pro tunc addition improper; reversed as to Nathaniel Andrasak. |
| sentencing presence and use of nunc pro tunc | Defendant was not present for modifications reflected by nunc pro tunc entry. | Nunc pro tunc entry reflects court's original decision. | Crim.R. 43(A) violated; sentencing outside presence; improper use of nunc pro tunc. |
| Marriage status of couple as basis for no-contact | Record shows a spousal relationship; no-contact justified. | No clear evidence Andrasak and Hanning are married; no error evident. | Evidence insufficient; no plain error shown; sustained as to husband issue not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (marriage as a fundamental civil right)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) (parent-child relationship protected)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (importance of parent-child relationship)
- State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St.2d 112 (1977) (forfeiture of appeal rights when not raised below)
- State v. Conkle, 129 Ohio App.3d 177 (1998) (upholding no-contact order in domestic violence context)
- State v. Bock, 16 Ohio App.3d 146 (1984) (proper use of nunc pro tunc entries)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 2006-Ohio-5795 (2006) (nunc pro tunc limitations)
- Greulich, 61 Ohio App.3d 22 (1988) (record speaks the truth; proper nunc pro tunc use)