State v. Powell, 2023 Ohio 344

Powell pleaded guilty in March 2019 to CCW (4th), possession of drugs (5th), and aggravated possession (5th) and was sentenced to five years of community control.
After violating community control, Powell waived a violation hearing in July 2020 and was sentenced to an aggregate 24-month prison term, with the sentencing entry stating 443 days of jail-time credit (three distinct custody periods totaled).
Powell later filed a pro se motion claiming he received only 151 days of credit rather than the 443 days listed; the trial court did not rule on that motion initially.
In July 2021 the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry changing the jail-time credit to 151 days, effectively reducing Powell’s credited time by 292 days.
Powell pursued a delayed appeal; the State conceded the nunc pro tunc entry was improper. The appellate court reversed and vacated the July 14, 2021 nunc pro tunc entry and directed the trial court to confirm 443 days of jail-time credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly used a nunc pro tunc entry to reduce Powell's jail-time credit after the final sentencing entry	The State conceded the nunc pro tunc was improper and agreed the reduction was invalid	Powell argued the nunc pro tunc improperly altered the final judgment and reduced the jail-time credit the court previously ordered	The court held the nunc pro tunc entry was improper because it changed the original sentencing judgment; it vacated the nunc pro tunc and ordered confirmation of 443 days of credit

McKay v. McKay, 24 Ohio App.3d 74 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (nunc pro tunc is limited to placing on the record what the court actually did; it cannot change what the court decided)
State v. Jama, 189 Ohio App.3d 687 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (an improper nunc pro tunc order is void)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (Ohio 2010) (trial court may not use nunc pro tunc to add or alter substantive sentencing findings not made at the hearing)