2019 Ohio 1172
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In June 2003 a jury convicted Robert L. Bates of murder with firearm and drive-by specifications; a July 7, 2003 sentencing entry was filed but lacked the trial judge's signature.
- Bates appealed; this court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal in 2004 and Bates did not seek further review.
- Bates later filed multiple postconviction motions; in 2011 he first argued the sentencing entry was defective for lacking the judge's signature under Crim.R. 32(C). The state agreed the entry lacked a signature but argued the proper remedy was a corrected entry (nunc pro tunc).
- In October 2017 Bates moved for a corrected sentencing entry or, if the original judge was unavailable, a limited resentencing hearing; the trial court denied the motion on November 29, 2017.
- Bates filed a mandamus action in this court and separately appealed the denial; this opinion addresses the appeal from the trial court's denial and holds the denial reversible — remanding for a nunc pro tunc corrected sentencing entry bearing the judge’s signature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the original 2003 sentencing entry lacking the judge's signature is a final, appealable order | State: entry was noncompliant with Crim.R. 32(C) but prior direct appeal treated it as final; law-of-the-case bars relitigation | Bates: absence of signature renders the entry nonfinal under Baker/Lester and requires correction or resentencing | Court: Law-of-the-case applies because this court reviewed and affirmed the judgment on direct appeal; the sentencing entry is implicitly final and appealable |
| Proper remedy for Crim.R. 32(C) defect (lack of signature) | State: corrective remedy is a nunc pro tunc corrected sentencing entry, not a new sentencing hearing | Bates: requests corrected entry or, if original judge unavailable, a limited resentencing hearing (citing Anderson) | Court: Remedy is a corrected nunc pro tunc entry; successor judge may sign; resentencing hearing not required |
| Appealability of trial court order denying motion to correct sentencing entry | State: order denying motion is appealable because underlying entry was implicitly final on direct appeal | Bates: challenged finality, arguing Baker/Lester made original entry nonfinal | Court: Denial is a final, appealable order here because of prior direct appeal and law-of-the-case doctrine |
| Whether injustice exists to overcome law-of-the-case and permit collateral attack | Bates: argues omission prejudices appeal rights and mandates relief | State: no prejudice; transcript shows sentencing pronouncement met Crim.R. 32(C) elements | Court: No injustice found; verbal pronouncement and clerk entry gave adequate notice; law-of-the-case stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (sets elements for a final, appealable judgment of conviction including judge's signature)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (applies Baker on finality when Crim.R. 32(C) elements missing)
- State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (technical Crim.R. 32(C) failures may be cured by corrected entry; not a nullity)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (writ granted to correct defective sentencing entry; discussed and distinguished)
- Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (remedy for defective sentencing entry is a motion for revised sentencing entry, possibly procedendo)
- State ex rel. Snead v. Ferenc, 138 Ohio St.3d 136 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (clerical errors in sentencing entry may be corrected nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Roberts, 150 Ohio St.3d 47 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (successor judge may implement remand/conditions without revisiting conviction)