State v. Isenogle, 2022 Ohio 1257

Background

Indictment charged Matthew Isenogle with illegal manufacture of drugs (Count One) and related counts arising from a November 26, 2020 stop: police found a two‑liter “one‑pot” bottle with methamphetamine in Conley’s car and meth‑lab debris; a hotel room occupied by Conley and Isenogle contained additional meth‑lab items.
Isenogle was arrested, admitted staying at the hotel with Conley in jail calls, and admitted taking fentanyl in the car.
At trial the State presented evidence only of methamphetamine manufacture; the indictment and bill of particulars mistakenly cited R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2) (which excepts methamphetamine) instead of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3) (covering methamphetamine).
The jury convicted Isenogle of Count One (illegal manufacture) and Count Four (possession of fentanyl‑related compound), acquitted on two other counts.
After verdict the State moved to amend Count One’s statutory citation from (C)(2) to (C)(3); the court granted the amendment, sentenced Isenogle to a mandatory minimum 5 years (concurrent 12 months on Count Four), and later issued sentencing entries that still contained the mistaken statutory citation.
On appeal Isenogle argued (1) the post‑verdict amendment unlawfully changed the charged offense, (2) insufficient evidence supported Count One, and (3) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and remanded to correct clerical errors in the sentencing entries.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Isenogle's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to amend Count One from R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2) to (C)(3) after trial	Amendment cured a typographical error and did not change the name/identity of the offense; defendant was not misled or prejudiced	Amendment changed the identity of the crime charged because (C)(2) and (C)(3) address different controlled substances and the grand jury/indictment did not charge (C)(3)	Amendment was proper: the indictment substantively charged manufacture of methamphetamine and the change was a form/citation correction, not a change in the identity of the offense; remand to correct clerical sentencing entries to cite (C)(3)
Sufficiency of the evidence to support Count One (illegal manufacture under R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3))	Evidence (one‑pot with 14.63 g meth, lab trash in car and hotel room, hotel occupancy/payment and jail calls) permitted a rational juror to find Isenogle aided/abetted manufacture	No direct evidence tied Isenogle to manufacturing or aiding/abetting; mere presence is insufficient	Sufficient evidence: circumstantial evidence (items in car, hotel lab items, Isenogle’s admissions and hotel payment) supports conviction for aiding and abetting manufacture
Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably credited State’s witnesses and inferences; verdicts on other counts show jury evaluated evidence carefully	Verdict is against the weight because State failed to prove knowing participation beyond mere association	Not against manifest weight: appellate court found no miscarriage of justice and that the evidence did not weigh heavily against the convictions

Key Cases Cited

State v. O'Brien, 30 Ohio St.3d 122 (Ohio 1987) (amendment that changes the name or identity of the offense is prohibited)
State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475 (Ohio 1983) (prohibition on amendments that alter offense identity)
State v. Campbell, 100 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 2003) (indictment must give fair notice of charged offense; substance over citation)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight of the evidence standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts retain jurisdiction to correct clerical errors)
State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (Ohio 2002) (limits on use of nunc pro tunc entries—may reflect what court actually decided)
State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1995) (nunc pro tunc entries cannot be used to change what court actually decided)
State v. Brown, 136 Ohio App.3d 816 (Ohio Ct. App.) (definition of clerical mistakes as mechanical errors apparent on the record)
Dentsply Internatl., Inc. v. Kostas, 26 Ohio App.3d 116 (Ohio Ct. App.) (clerical errors defined and distinguished from judicial decisions)