2011 Ohio 3504
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Kramer pled guilty Feb. 12, 2009 to a fourth-degree domestic-violence misdemeanor; the plea form acknowledged subsequent offenses could be a felony.
- A February 12, 2009 judgment entry listed the charge as 2919.25(A) M1 DV and reflected 'Guilty' in the Plea section, but the Decision section remained unchecked and contained handwritten notes.
- On Dec. 23, 2009, the court filed a nunc pro tunc notation amending the charge to M4 DV; the entry was unsigned and not properly stamped.
- In Jan. 2010 Kramer moved to withdraw her guilty plea and also sought post-conviction relief; she claimed the original judgment was void for multiple defects, including lack of open-court addressing and clerical errors.
- At a Feb. 2010 hearing, Kramer testified she was not personally addressed in court about the plea; her attorney indicated she would have preferred more discussion and time if she had known about potential felony consequences.
- The trial court denied both motions, concluding the original judgment complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and that manifest injustice did not exist; it considered the nunc pro tunc entry but found it not finalized as a judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb. 12, 2009 judgment complied with Crim.R. 32(C) so post-judgment withdrawal wasn't pre-sentence | Kramer argues the judgment lacked a guilt finding and is void/voidable, so withdrawal should be pre-sentence. | State contends the judgment reflects a guilty plea and satisfies Crim.R. 32(C), making it a final, appealable order. | Assignment of error overruled; judgment complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and was final. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied post-conviction relief given untimely filing | Kramer asserts constitutional rights violated and that she was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the defects. | State argues no prejudice shown; timely filing not satisfied but amendments and evidence do not establish a due-process violation. | Assignment of error overruled; no meritorious post-conviction relief. |
| Whether the nunc pro tunc entry was properly before the court and final | Kramer contends the December 23, 2009 nunc pro tunc entry is invalid because it was not a final, properly journalized judgment. | State argues the nunc pro tunc entry was intended to correct clerical error but is not yet a final appealable order. | Assignment of error overruled; nunc pro tunc entry not finalized and not properly before the court at issue. |
| Whether the court complied with Crim.R.11(D) and journalization requirements | Kramer claims lack of personal address and proper Crim.R.11(D) compliance affected voluntariness of plea. | State notes no timely appeal from the February 12, 2009 judgment; questioned evidentiary issues with docketing. | Assignment of error overruled; no error found requiring relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (defines Crim.R. 32(C) final judgment elements)
- State v. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371 (2011) (recognizes finality and journalization requirements)
- State v. Ellington, 36 Ohio App.3d 76 (1987) (journalization vs. docket entry distinction)
- State v. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (docket vs. journal distinction; journalization required for final judgment)
- State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (1995) (nunc pro tunc limitations; corrects only what court actually decided)
- State v. Elkins v. Sandusky Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2011-Ohio-1904 (2011) (nunc pro tunc entries; proper scope and finality)