State v. Mackey, 2011 Ohio 2651

Mackey was indicted on two counts of Trafficking in Crack Cocaine near a juvenile, plus Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Crack Cocaine.
Appellant pleaded guilty to all counts; trial court imposed multiple terms totaling two years and nine months in prison, with a $100 fine on the marijuana count.
Sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, but the April 6, 2011 sentencing entry did not reflect that consecutivity.
A nunc pro tunc entry dated June 17, 2011 was issued to correct the sentencing entry to reflect consecutive sentences.
Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous and raising a single potential assignment of error.
The Court of Appeals granted counsel’s withdrawal, reviewed the record, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding the nunc pro tunc entry corrected a clerical error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nunc pro tunc entry correctly reflected consecutive sentences.	Mackey argues the sentencing entry did not reflect consecutive terms.	Mackey contends the clerical correction was improper or insufficient.	Nunc pro tunc entry valid to reflect the court’s actual decision.

State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (clerical corrections allowed under Crim.R. 36 and court authority to fix record)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 2011 WL 251474 (Ohio) (inherent authority to correct clerical errors in judgments)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010-Ohio-6323) (limitations on nunc pro tunc corrections; reflects actual decision)
Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (clarifies clerical nature of corrections under Crim.R. 36)
Brown v. State, 136 Ohio App.3d 816 (2000-Ohio App.3d 816) (definition of clerical vs legal error in judgments)
State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (1995-Ohio-393) (clerical corrections must reflect what was decided, not what could have been)