State v. Halsey
2016 Ohio 7990
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- William Halsey pled guilty to sexual battery; at sentencing the judge orally informed him he would be classified as a Tier III sex offender and Halsey signed an Explanation of Duties form.
- The journalized sentencing entry omitted any reference to a Tier III sex-offender classification; the signed Explanation form was not filed in the clerk's record.
- Halsey completed his community-control sentence and the case was terminated in 2012, but he continued registering as a Tier III offender with the sheriff.
- In 2014 Halsey moved to vacate the sex-offender classification, arguing the omission in the sentencing entry rendered it void; the trial court denied the motion and this court affirmed on the ground there was nothing in the journal to vacate.
- After this court supplemented the record with the signed Explanation form, the state moved for a nunc pro tunc entry to add the Tier III classification; the trial court denied the motion because the original entry was silent and Halsey had completed his sanctions.
- The state appealed the denial, arguing the omission was a clerical error correctable at any time under Crim.R. 36 because Halsey was properly notified at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of a Tier III sex-offender classification from the journalized sentencing entry can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry after the defendant completed the journalized sentence | The omission was a clerical error; Crim.R. 36 allows correction at any time because Halsey was orally notified at sentencing | The omission rendered the classification void; once the journalized sentence was completed the court lacked jurisdiction to impose or correct the classification | The omission renders the Tier III classification void and cannot be corrected by nunc pro tunc after completion of the journalized sentence; trial court denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (describing limits on resentencing after completion of prison term)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (Adam Walsh Act classification is punitive)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006) (sentencing court speaks only through its journal; postrelease control cannot be imposed if omitted from entry after imprisonment completed)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (nunc pro tunc correction of sentencing entry is allowed only if done before completion of the prison term)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (a court’s journal entry controls; discussion of correcting sentencing entries for omitted findings)
- State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (2012) (Crim.R. 36 authority to correct clerical mistakes discussed)