State v. Glover
2021 Ohio 2533
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- In 2014 Glover pled no-contest to three sexual-battery counts, was found guilty after a bench trial on one sexual-battery count and two counts of rape of a child under 10.
- Sentences: for each rape conviction 10 years-to-life; for each sexual-battery conviction 48 months; all concurrent. Each judgment entry imposed five years of post-release control.
- The original 2014 judgment entry erroneously stated a jury convicted Glover of the rape counts and that all four sexual-battery counts were no-contest dispositions.
- This court affirmed Glover’s convictions on direct appeal in 2016; the misstatement in the judgment entry was not raised then.
- In 2019 Glover moved to correct his sentence, arguing (1) post-release control was improperly imposed (he claimed only three years applied to sexual battery and none applied to the rape life-range sentences) and (2) the judgment entry should be corrected because the rape convictions were by bench trial, not jury.
- The trial court denied relief on the post-release-control claims (citing statutory authority) but acknowledged the bench-vs-jury error and filed an amended judgment reflecting bench convictions; the appellate court affirmed and remanded to correct the record that one sexual-battery conviction also came from the bench trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Glover) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether five years mandatory post-release control was authorized for Glover’s convictions | R.C. requires five years post-release control for first-degree felonies and felony sex offenses; the trial court properly imposed five years | Glover argued post-release control was unauthorized: three years for sexual battery and none for his rape (life-range) sentences; thus his sentence is void and requires de novo resentencing | Denied: sentencing errors are voidable, not void, when court had jurisdiction; res judicata bars collateral challenge to post-release control—affirmed trial court’s imposition |
| Whether the trial court properly corrected the judgment entry (nunc pro tunc) to reflect bench convictions | The court may correct clerical mistakes under Crim.R.36 to accurately record what occurred | Glover contended the original entry misstated that a jury convicted him and that he pled to all sexual-battery counts | Affirmed correction: nunc pro tunc entry was appropriate to record the actual bench-trial convictions; remand only to correct that one sexual-battery count mischaracterization |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 162 N.E.3d 776 (Ohio 2020) (sentencing errors render sentences voidable, not void, when court had jurisdiction)
- State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (same principle applied to post-release-control challenges)
- Smith v. Sheldon, 131 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio 2019) (common pleas courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over felonies)
- State v. Arnold, 938 N.E.2d 45 (Ohio App. 2009) (nunc pro tunc under Crim.R.36 corrects clerical errors to reflect actions actually taken)