State v. Puttick
2013 Ohio 3295
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Puttick pleaded guilty in three cases in January 2011 and received a single sentencing hearing for all three cases.
- In 2009CR0116 he pled guilty to drug possession (felony, fifth degree) and OVI (misdemeanor); sentences included 11 months and 180 days, respectively, to run concurrently.
- In 2009CR0183 he pled guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; a 17-month term and a 6-month term were imposed, to run concurrently.
- In 2010CR0145 he pled guilty to drug possession; an 11-month sentence was imposed.
- At sentencing, the court stated in open court the three terms would run consecutively for a total of 39 months, but the February 1, 2011 entries stated they would run concurrently (17 months total) and suspended imposition, placing Puttick on five years of community control.
- On May 17, 2012 the State sought to revoke community control; July 2, 2012 merit hearing occurred; August 30, 2012 nunc pro tunc sentencing entries modified the terms to run consecutively for a total 39 months, and dispositional judgments revoked community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nunc pro tunc entries could alter the sentence terms after violation. | Puttick; after violation, nunc pro tunc entries should reflect original terms. | Puttick; entries cannot exceed the originally stated terms and violate due process. | Yes; nunc pro tunc cannot exceed the original five-year notice and violates due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sheffield, 2011-Ohio-2395 (8th Dist. 2011) (reaffirmed that notice under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) must precede a prison term upon violation and journal entries control)
- State v. Brooks, 2004-Ohio-4746 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (requires clear, statutory-notice to be given before imposing term for violation)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006-Ohio-126) (journal entries govern the court's record and must reflect the actual sentence)
- State v. Spears, 2010-Ohio-2229 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2010) (Crim.R. 36 allows corrections of clerical errors; cannot justify after-the-fact sentence increases)
- State v. Brooks, 814 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 2004) (articulates the notice requirement under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5))