State v. Berryman, 2012 Ohio 5208

Berryman was indicted in 2004 on six counts of rape of a child under ten; he pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child under 13, first-degree felonies, with four counts dismissed and a 20-year sentence imposed.
Defendant appealed and a prior direct appeal and post-conviction relief petition were resolved unfavorably against him.
In January 2012, Berryman moved for re-sentencing to address post-release control; he was re-sentenced to include a mandatory five-year post-release control term, and the court announced it would correct other errors.
The trial court amended the judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the degree of the offenses and to reflect the guilty plea and post-release control.
The court held that nunc pro tunc correction was proper to reflect what actually occurred and that it did not create a new final appealable order; the original judgment remained subject to appellate review in its corrected form.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the nunc pro tunc entry did not create a new appeal and properly corrected clerical/record errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the original judgment was a final appealable order.	Berryman contends the original entry lacked finality under Crim.R. 32(C) because it mis-stated the conviction.	Berryman argues the misstatement prevented a direct appeal.	Yes; the judgment satisfied Crim.R. 32(C) and was final.
Whether the nunc pro tunc correction changed the offense or required a new direct appeal.	The correction altered the nature of the conviction.	The correction merely reflected what actually occurred without elevating the offense or altering sentence.	No; nunc pro tunc correction reflects actual proceedings and does not create a new appeal.
Whether the nunc pro tunc correction was proper to fix clerical errors without altering sentence.	Correction was improper if it changed terms or sentence.	Correction was proper to reflect the guilty plea and post-release control.	Proper; correction aligns record with the trial court’s actual actions.

State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2011) (finality of judgment under Crim.R. 32(C) requires notice of appeal timing)
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2008) (Crim.R. 32(C) requirements explained; finality)
State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-5990 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2011) (nunc pro tunc corrections to reflect true conviction scope)
State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2011) (clerical errors may be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry)
State ex rel. Mayer v. Hensen, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2001) (clerical errors and record corrections)