2020 Ohio 4897
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2007 Crawford was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder, murder, and tampering with evidence; the court imposed concurrent life-with-parole-after-20-years for aggravated murder, 15-to-life for murder, consecutive five years for tampering, firearm specifications, discretionary postrelease control (PRC) up to three years, and court costs.
- The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal; in 2009 this court reopened the appeal, held aggravated murder and murder were allied offenses, and remanded for resentencing on one offense.
- At the 2010 resentencing the trial court merged the murder into aggravated murder, entered a judgment listing a 20-years-to-life term, but the 2010 entry mistakenly: (a) stated convictions were on guilty pleas, (b) omitted the costs order, and (c) imposed a five-year PRC rather than the prior discretionary three-year PRC.
- In 2014 the court entered a nunc pro tunc judgment to restore the costs order but otherwise carried forward the 2010 clerical errors.
- In 2019 Crawford moved for resentencing, alleging the judgments were void for multiple defects; the common pleas court overruled the motion and Crawford appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crawford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could resentence because the judgments were void | Errors in sentence did not permit resentencing on Crawford's motion; court lacked authority to grant the requested resentencing | Sentences and entries were void (improper sentence, wrong PRC, misstatement of plea, costs) and therefore subject to correction at any time | Court: No jurisdiction to resentence; errors were voidable, not void (Harper realignment) |
| Whether Crawford's motion could be treated under postconviction statutes or rules (R.C.2953.21, Crim.R.32.1/33, writs) | Motion did not invoke a cognizable postconviction remedy and did not allege a constitutional violation; thus not reviewable under those statutes/rules | Relief was available through postconviction procedures or other motions to correct the judgment | Court: Motion not cognizable under postconviction statutes, plea-withdrawal rule, new-trial rule, or writ statutes |
| Whether Crim.R.36 authorized correction of errors in the 2014 judgment (costs omission, wrong PRC, plea misstatement) | Clerical mistakes in the judgment could be corrected under Crim.R.36 | Sought full resentencing but also pointed to clerical errors that should be fixed | Court: Crim.R.36 authorizes correction of the omitted costs, the incorrect PRC term, and the misstatement that convictions were on guilty pleas |
| Proper remedy/remand | Trial court's overruling of the motion should be affirmed in part; clerical errors should be corrected, not resentencing | Requested resentencing and final appealable order; alternatively correction of clerical errors | Court: Affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded to enter corrected judgment nunc pro tunc to the 2010 resentencing (no new sentencing hearing) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (court may correct void judgments; discusses jurisdiction to correct void sentences)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (previously treated certain unlawful sentences as void)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (prior precedent on void judgments overruled by later authority)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (postrelease-control holding relevant to authorized PRC for unclassified felonies)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1979) (presumption of regularity where transcript is absent)
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (2008) (court may recast pro se filings into proper procedural categories)
- State v. Powell, 90 Ohio App.3d 260 (1993) (postconviction petitions under R.C.2953.21 must allege constitutional violations to be cognizable)