State v. Hach
2012 Ohio 2603
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Hach was convicted in 1999 of eleven counts of rape and ten counts of gross sexual imposition involving a child.
- His original sentencing entry stated he was found guilty at trial but did not specify the manner of conviction (jury vs bench).
- A May 2011 nunc pro tunc entry amended the sentencing to say he was guilty after a jury, addressing Rule 32(C) deficiencies.
- Hach did not appeal the May 2011 nunc pro tunc entry.
- In October 2011, Hach moved to ‘Proceed to Judgment,’ which the trial court denied, and he appealed the denial.
- This Court held the October 2011 entry was not an appealable final order; thus the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the October 2011 entry is an appealable final order | Hach contends the October 2011 ruling is appealable. | State argues the October 2011 entry is not a final, appealable order. | Not appealable; Court lacks jurisdiction. |
| Whether the May 2011 nunc pro tunc entry created a new final order | Nunc pro tunc entry corrected a prior defect and should be appealable. | Nunc pro tunc entry was not a new final order; it corrected form under Rule 32(C). | Nunc pro tunc entry did not create a new appealable final order. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008-Ohio-3330) (defines when a judgment of conviction is a final appealable order under 2505.02)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011-Ohio-5204) (finality depends on specific journalization elements; nunc pro tunc corrections do not bar existing final orders)
- State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 (2011-Ohio-235) (clerical errors corrected by revised entries; corrected order not a new hearing)
- State v. Roberts, 106 Ohio App. 3d 30 (2d Dist. 1957) (defines final order under 2505.02)