State v. Patterson
2017 Ohio 9001
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brandon Patterson was indicted for attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault (each with firearm specifications), and having weapons while under disability for a shooting at a party; a jury convicted him in 2009.
- The trial court sentenced Patterson to an aggregate 20 years in prison in a May 19, 2009 entry; the sentencing transcript set out which counts and specifications were concurrent or consecutive.
- Patterson later challenged aspects of the sentencing entries; this Court affirmed convictions but remanded for proper imposition of post-release control, leading to a re-sentencing entry on June 1, 2015.
- The June 1, 2015 entry inadvertently misstated the merge/concurrency treatment of certain firearm specifications relative to the May 19, 2009 journal entry.
- On July 20, 2017, the trial court issued nunc pro tunc entries (one correcting the May 19, 2009 entry and one correcting the June 1, 2015 entry as of 6/1/15) to reflect what the court actually pronounced at the May 6, 2009 sentencing hearing.
- Patterson appealed, arguing the nunc pro tunc entry improperly made substantive changes to his sentence and violated his due process and double jeopardy rights; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Patterson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to issue the July 20, 2017 nunc pro tunc correcting the 6/1/15 entry | The nunc pro tunc corrected clerical errors and made the journal conform to what the court actually pronounced at sentencing | The nunc pro tunc made substantive changes, exceeded jurisdiction, and violated due process and double jeopardy | The court held the trial court had authority; the entries corrected clerical errors and did not alter the substantive sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (clarifies that courts may correct records so the journal reflects what the court actually decided)
- State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (establishes that Crim.R. 36 nunc pro tunc correction is limited to clerical errors apparent on the record and not to substantive judicial decisions)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (explains nunc pro tunc entries apply retrospectively and are used to make the record reflect the court's actual decision)