State v. Burton, 2014 Ohio 1692

Jerry Burton was convicted in 1992 of four counts of rape of a child under 13 with force/threat specifications and sentenced to four life terms (counts 2 and 3 concurrent).
Burton directly appealed; conviction affirmed. He later filed habeas and was denied. In July 2013 he filed a pro se motion for "resentence," claiming his sentence was void and that the statute cited in the jury verdict (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(2)) did not exist.
The trial court solicited memoranda and proposed entries from the parties and ultimately signed the State’s proposed entry denying Burton’s motion.
The court of appeals treated the jury-verdict citation to R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(2) as a clerical error; the indictment and sentencing entry showed Burton was charged under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b).
The court held Burton’s life sentences were within the statutory scheme then in effect (R.C. 2907.02(B) mandated life where victim under 13 and submission was compelled by force/threat), so the sentence was not void.
The appellate court affirmed denial of the motion but modified the judgment entry on verdict to reflect R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was void due to an incorrect statutory citation in the verdict entry	Burton: verdict cited a non‑existent statute (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(2)), so sentence is void	Court/State: citation is a clerical error; record shows correct charge under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and sentence was lawful	Citation was a clerical error; sentence lawful; motion denied
Whether timing or procedural requirements limit relief for an alleged void sentence	Burton: timing should not bar relief for a void sentence	State: trial court lacked error because sentence was valid; standard procedural rules apply	A court may correct void judgments at any time, but here sentence was not void so timing irrelevant
Whether trial court erred by not citing case law in its denial entry	Burton: court failed to consider or mention his cited authorities	State: no rule requires trial court to recite cases in its entry; no prejudice if omitted	No error; omission not required and caused no prejudice
Whether trial court erred by adopting a State‑drafted entry denying relief	Burton: prosecutor drafting the final entry taints the decision	State: parties were asked for proposed entries; court may adopt one; no prejudice	No reversible error; any drafting issue harmless because sentence was valid

State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (2012) (trial courts lack authority to reconsider valid final criminal judgments; exceptions for void sentences and clerical corrections)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (courts retain jurisdiction to correct void sentences and clerical errors)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (a sentence not in accordance with statute is void)
State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (1995) (courts may correct judgment entries so the record speaks the truth)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010) (Crim.R. 36 and clerical‑error doctrine limited to mechanical mistakes apparent on the record)
Lester v. State, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (corrections should reflect what the court actually decided)
Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 363 (2000) (courts have inherent authority to vacate void judgments)