State v. Hafford
2016 Ohio 7282
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Allen Hafford pleaded guilty to fifth-degree felony theft and was sentenced to three years of community control with intensive supervision.
- At sentencing the trial court orally ordered Hafford to enter River City Correctional Center for treatment, to be held pending bed availability.
- The written sentencing entry omitted the River City requirement due to a clerical error.
- The probation department charged Hafford with violating community control for refusing to enter River City; at the revocation hearing Hafford pleaded guilty and waived probable cause.
- The trial court revoked community control and sentenced Hafford to 10 months in prison; a nunc pro tunc entry later corrected the original entry to include the River City term.
- Hafford appealed, claiming the revocation violated due process because the River City term was not journalized at the time of the revocation hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation was invalid because the River City term was not journalized before the revocation hearing | The State argued the oral sentencing term was the court's decision and could be corrected by nunc pro tunc as a clerical error | Hafford argued the unjournalized term meant the court lacked authority to find a violation and his guilty plea was a nullity; post-revocation nunc pro tunc violated due process | Court held the omission was a clerical error correctable by nunc pro tunc; the oral order reflected the court's actual decision, so revocation did not violate due process |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 656 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 1995) (a court speaks only through its journal entries)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 958 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2011) (distinguishing clerical errors from judicial decisions for nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 940 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio 2010) (clarifies limits on nunc pro tunc corrections)
- N.Y. Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Bedford Hts. Income Tax Bd. of Rev., 144 Ohio St.3d 1481, 45 N.E.3d 247 (Ohio 2016) (nunc pro tunc entries relate back to original judgment)
- State v. Ware, 141 Ohio St.3d 160, 22 N.E.3d 1082 (Ohio 2014) (nunc pro tunc may correct clerical omissions)
- Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254, 23 N.E.3d 1096 (Ohio 2014) (discussion of nunc pro tunc effect on original entries)
- State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 676 N.E.2d 82 (Ohio 1997) (recognizes correction of clerical errors concerning community-control terms)