State v. Liddy, 2022 Ohio 4282

Appellant Richard J. Liddy was indicted for felony failure to comply (willfully eluding police with substantial risk of serious physical harm) but pleaded guilty to attempted failure to comply (a fourth-degree felony).
The trial court deferred sentencing pending resolution of a separate case; earlier the same day Liddy was sentenced in that separate case to five years’ imprisonment.
At sentencing in this case the court imposed an 18‑month prison term to be served consecutively to the separate five‑year term, stating orally that a consecutive term was mandatory and also orally granting 425 days of jail‑time credit.
The written judgment entry omitted the statutory R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive‑sentence findings and stated Liddy was not entitled to jail‑time credit because he received credit in the separate case.
Liddy appealed arguing (1) the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and (2) the journal entry incorrectly omitted the 425 days of jail‑time credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a consecutive sentence was mandatory for an attempted failure‑to‑comply conviction	The State argued the statute governing failure to comply (R.C. 2921.331(D)) mandates consecutive service and thus no R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were required	Liddy argued attempted failure to comply is a separate offense under the attempt statute (R.C. 2923.02) and the mandatory consecutive provision applies only to completed failure‑to‑comply	Court held consecutive service was not mandatory for an attempted offense; because the court imposed consecutive terms without making R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, the sentence is contrary to law and must be vacated and resentenced
Whether the journal entry’s jail‑time credit (or lack thereof) can be corrected nunc pro tunc	The State conceded error and asked for a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect the 425 days	Liddy sought correction (remand) to reflect the orally‑pronounced 425 days of credit	Court found the sentencing entry substantively conflicts with the oral pronouncement; this is not a clerical error and requires a new sentencing hearing/resentencing for jail‑time credit

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and journal consecutive‑sentence findings or record must otherwise show them)
State v. Taylor, 865 N.E.2d 37 (Ohio 2007) (when a specific statutory scheme governs, attempted offenses may be subject to the specific statute’s sentencing rules)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 626 N.E.2d 939 (Ohio 1994) (statutory construction: determine legislative intent from statutory text)
Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 846 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 2006) (apply plain meaning to unambiguous statutes)
State v. Miller, 940 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio 2010) (a court speaks through its journal; journal must reflect the sentence imposed)
Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)