State v. Hidvegi, 2019 Ohio 3893

Andrew Hidvegi faced multiple indictments in Cuyahoga County (burglary, theft, escape, vandalism, and drug offenses) and pleaded guilty to charges across four case numbers in Oct–Nov 2018.
In CR-632805 he pleaded guilty to one count of fifth-degree drug trafficking; other counts in that case were dismissed.
At the sentencing hearing the court orally pronounced sentences including a six-year term for the drug-trafficking conviction and concurrent aggregate exposure of six years.
The written sentencing entries conflicted with the oral pronouncements: CR-632805’s journal entry recorded a six-month term for drug trafficking (contradicting the oral six-year sentence), CR-628738’s journal entry recorded six years for burglary (oral sentence was two years), and CR-628365’s entries failed to reflect dismissal of Count 2 (escape).
The state conceded error. The court vacated the drug-trafficking sentence and remanded for resentencing, and ordered nunc pro tunc corrections to the clerical journal-entry errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing entry that differs from the oral pronouncement invalidates the sentence	State concedes discrepancy and error in entries	Hidvegi argues the written sentence differed from the oral sentence and must be remedied	Court vacated the drug-trafficking sentence and remanded for resentencing because the oral six-year term for an F5 was contrary to law and an entry cannot cure that error
Whether a trial court may correct an illegal or inconsistent sentence by changing the journal entry	State conceded journal entry cannot cure an orally pronounced illegal sentence	Hidvegi sought relief from the inconsistent/illegal sentencing	Court held a sentencing entry cannot override or legally correct an unlawful oral sentence; resentencing required
Whether clerical errors in sentencing entries may be corrected by nunc pro tunc	State agreed those were clerical mistakes	Hidvegi sought correction to reflect actual actions at sentencing	Court held nunc pro tunc corrections are appropriate for clerical/typographical errors that fail to reflect what the court actually did (e.g., change six years to two years for burglary; note dismissal of Count 2)

State v. Miller, 940 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio 2010) (discusses proper use of nunc pro tunc to correct clerical errors)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 865 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio 2006) (definition and limits on nunc pro tunc relief)
State v. Lester, 958 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2011) (nunc pro tunc cannot alter what court actually did vs. what it intended)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 943 N.E.2d 1010 (Ohio 2011) (nunc pro tunc entries relate back to original entry date)