State v. Parker, 2021 Ohio 509

In 1996 Parker was indicted on three counts (aggravated murder by prior calculation, aggravated murder with aggravated robbery predicate, and aggravated robbery); the first count was dismissed before submission to the jury and the remaining counts were renumbered at trial.
The jury convicted Parker of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery; the trial court sentenced him to life with parole eligibility after 30 years (aggravated murder), consecutive 10–25 years (aggravated robbery), plus a 3‑year firearm specification.
A January 22, 1998 nunc pro tunc entry mistakenly described which count was dismissed; the court corrected that clerical error with a March 16, 1998 nunc pro tunc entry reflecting that the original Count 1 was dismissed and Counts 2 and 3 were renumbered.
Parker’s direct appeal (Parker I) affirmed his convictions; subsequent collateral filings (including a new-trial motion and a Franklin County declaratory-judgment action, Parker III) were unsuccessful.
In 2019 Parker moved to vacate the March 16, 1998 nunc pro tunc entry, advancing alternative theories about which count was dismissed and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to amend the entry.
The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata; the Eighth District affirmed, holding the nunc pro tunc entry corrected a clerical error, the convictions and sentence remain valid, and indictment-sufficiency claims are nonjurisdictional and barred by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Mar. 16, 1998 nunc pro tunc entry / due process to be sentenced on conviction	Nunc pro tunc was a valid correction of a clerical error; res judicata bars relitigation	Jan. 22, 1998 entry dismissed aggravated robbery; March 16 entry was void and court lacked authority to reconsider	Denied. Claims barred by res judicata; March 16 entry properly corrected clerical error and is not void
Whether aggravated‑murder conviction is void because predicate aggravated‑robbery was dismissed	Record shows aggravated robbery was convicted; only original Count 1 (different aggravated‑murder theory) was dismissed	Aggravated‑murder sentence is void if predicate robbery was dismissed	Denied. Conviction stands; renumbering and dismissal clarified by nunc pro tunc entry
Sufficiency of the indictment / subject‑matter jurisdiction	Indictment was adequate and any defect is nonjurisdictional; such defects should be raised on direct appeal	Indictment failed to allege culpable mental state / was fatally insufficient making convictions void	Denied. Indictment defects are nonjurisdictional (voidable), were not raised on direct appeal, and are barred by res judicata

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997) (postconviction relief framework and characterization of collateral challenges)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 860 N.E.2d 77 (2006) (postconviction petition is a collateral civil attack; standards for relief)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) (res judicata bars litigating issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 856 N.E.2d 263 (2006) (Crim.R. 36 authority and continuing jurisdiction to correct clerical errors by nunc pro tunc)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996) (res judicata applies in postconviction proceedings)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 967 N.E.2d 718 (2012) (distinguishing clerical vs. judicial errors and scope of correction)
State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11 (2007) (res judicata principles in collateral challenges)
State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 159 N.E.3d 248 (2020) (confirming trial court had subject‑matter jurisdiction over felony proceedings)