State v. Isa
2017 Ohio 8335
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Abraham Isa was convicted of multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition and sentenced to an aggregate 24½-year prison term; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Over several years Isa filed numerous postconviction and collateral motions (resentencing, new trial, challenges to post-release control, clerical corrections); most were denied and prior appeals affirmed.
- In December 2016 Isa moved to vacate a void judgment, claiming the sentencing hearing omitted imposition of 18‑month terms for Counts 9, 11, and 12, yet the termination entry imposed 18 months on each—arguing this made the sentence void and was imposed outside his presence (Crim.R. 43).
- Isa separately moved (March 2017) to correct a clerical error under Crim.R. 36 to remove those 18‑month terms from the termination entry; the trial court denied that motion as premature and on the merits.
- The trial court denied both motions; Isa appealed and the appellate court consolidated the appeals and affirmed, finding the sentences were not void, any discrepancy was harmless, and a nunc pro tunc correction to remove imposed terms was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Isa's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 18‑month terms for Counts 9, 11, 12 rendered the sentence void | Sentencing hearing omitted those prison terms, so the termination entry’s imposition is a void sentence that must be vacated | The 18‑month terms are statutorily authorized; omission was an irregularity, not jurisdictional, so res judicata bars relief | Held: Not void; res judicata applies because error was subject to direct appeal and sentence was within statutory authority |
| Whether imposition of those terms outside Isa’s presence violated Crim.R. 43(A) / due process | The termination entry imposed sentences outside Isa’s presence, violating Crim.R. 43 and due process | Any absence/error was harmless; record shows clear intent to impose 18‑month terms and concurrent treatment; no greater or harsher sentence resulted | Held: Presence violation (formal) but harmless; no prejudice and sentence unchanged |
| Whether the termination entry could be corrected nunc pro tunc under Crim.R. 36 to remove the 18‑month terms | The termination entry should be corrected to reflect the sentencing hearing (omit the 18‑month terms) | A nunc pro tunc cannot alter what the court actually intended; sentencing is a judicial act, not a clerical one, and the entry reflected the court’s intent | Held: Denied — nunc pro tunc inappropriate because entry reflects the court’s sentencing intent and sentencing is not a clerical function |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (void vs. voidable sentence distinction)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (sentencing errors not necessarily jurisdictional; statutory-mandated terms exception)
- Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437 (court cannot impose sentence other than statute provides)
- State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40 (authority on void judgments and jurisdiction)
- State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (defendant’s presence requirement and harmless-error framework)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (sentence packaging prohibition referenced by Isa)