State v. McIntyre
2016 Ohio 93
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2009 McIntyre was indicted on multiple counts including tampering with evidence, petty theft, tampering with records, and obstructing justice; a jury convicted him and the trial court sentenced him to prison.
- This Court earlier vacated one obstructing-justice conviction for a defective verdict form and remanded for resentencing on that count; subsequent appeals led to additional limited remands to consider allied-offense merger under State v. Johnson.
- On remand the trial court concluded some tampering offenses merged, the State elected to proceed on tampering-with-evidence, and the court held a resentencing hearing in July 2014.
- The trial court later granted (in part) a mistrial as to one count and issued a 2015 entry that (a) labeled itself nunc pro tunc, (b) dismissed or altered other counts, and (c) reflected changes beyond the limited scope of the appellate remand.
- McIntyre appealed, raising ten assignments of error challenging finality of the 2009 sentencing entry, jurisdiction, the nunc pro tunc label, merger of offenses, trial errors, and related matters.
Issues
| Issue | McIntyre's Argument | State/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2009 sentencing entry a final, appealable order? | 2009 entry was not final; therefore trial court retained jurisdiction for broader relief including mistrial and release. | 2009 entry met Crim.R. 32/Civil Rule 58 formalities and was final; trial court lacked general power to alter it except as limited by remand. | 2009 sentencing entry was final and appealable. |
| Did the trial court exceed the scope of the appellate remand by dismissing/altering counts and labeling the 2015 entry nunc pro tunc? | Trial court could correct perceived trial errors and grant mistrial on all counts or otherwise resolve counts. | Remand was limited to allied-offense sentencing; trial court lacked authority to dismiss or alter convictions resolved by the final 2009 judgment; nunc pro tunc improper where entry did more than correct clerical error. | Court vacated portions of the 2015 entry that exceeded the remand and sustained error as to the nunc pro tunc designation. |
| Did the trial court lose jurisdiction for failing to journalize the resentencing entry within 30 days under Sup.R. 7? | Sup.R. 7 violation deprived the court of jurisdiction to enter the judgment. | Even if delay occurred, failure to comply with Sup.R. 7 does not strip jurisdiction; remedy is mandamus/procedendo, not automatic nullity. | Overruled McIntyre; Sup.R. 7 noncompliance did not show lack of jurisdiction. |
| Are McIntyre's trial- and sufficiency-related challenges reviewable at the resentencing? | Trial errors and insufficiency support convictions should be reconsidered now. | Guilty verdicts remained law of the case; remand limited to sentencing/merger issues; res judicata bars relitigation. | Trial- and sufficiency-based assignments of error are barred by res judicata and overruled; only allied-offense sentencing issues remained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lester v. State, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (sets out elements of a final, appealable criminal judgment)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (remand for allied-offense sentencing limited to new sentencing hearing; guilty verdicts remain law of the case)
- State v. Gilbert, 143 Ohio St.3d 150 (trial court generally lacks authority to modify a criminal sentence after final judgment)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (nunc pro tunc entry limited to correcting clerical errors so entry matches what occurred in open court)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (appellate mandate limits trial court on remand)