State v. Hogle, 2017 Ohio 4096

Michael Hogle was indicted on two counts of rape (first-degree felonies) and one count of gross sexual imposition (fourth-degree felony); a jury convicted him of one count of rape (Count 2) and the GSI (Count 3).
On September 3, 2014 the trial court sentenced Hogle to three years for rape and 18 months for GSI, to be served concurrently, and ordered Tier III sex‑offender registration and five years post‑release control.
Hogle appealed and this court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in 2015.
On May 23, 2016 Hogle filed a Motion to Correct Sentence arguing the written sentencing entry contained inconsistent language about whether the sentences were mandatory, improperly stated eligibility for earned credit under R.C. 2967.193, erroneously described post‑release control as mandatory or not, and had a handwritten “Tier I” interlineation confusing the offender tier.
The State responded that most issues were barred by res judicata, but conceded a clerical inconsistency about Count 2’s mandatory status could be corrected; the sentencing transcript shows the court declared Count 2 a mandatory prison term.
The trial court dismissed Hogle’s motion and amended the sentencing entry to reflect Count 2 as a mandatory term; Hogle appealed and appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the written sentencing entry incorrectly described Count 2 as non‑mandatory despite the court’s oral statement	State: sentencing transcript shows Count 2 was imposed as mandatory and clerical correction is proper	Hogle: entry is inconsistent and thus erroneous; seeks correction	Court: No arguable merit to appeal; rape sentence is statutorily mandatory and Crim.R. 36 permits clerical correction; entry amended
Whether Hogle could challenge post‑release control as mandatory	State: R.C. 2967.28(B)(1) makes five years post‑release control mandatory for felony sex offenses	Hogle: sought to have post‑release control designated non‑mandatory	Court: No merit; post‑release control is statutorily mandatory
Whether earned‑credit language in entry (R.C. 2967.193) was incorrect	State: issue could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata	Hogle: challenged eligibility language for earned credits	Court: Barred by res judicata; no arguable merit
Whether the handwritten “Tier I” interlineation created an incorrect sex‑offender designation	State: court intended Tier III for rape and Tier I for GSI; handwriting was clerical/unclear	Hogle: objected to conflicting tier designation in entry	Court: No arguable merit; designation consistent with offenses and issue was forfeited on direct appeal

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when appellate counsel finds appeal frivolous)
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R. 36 / nunc pro tunc may correct clerical errors to reflect actual proceedings)