State v. Ritchie
2011 Ohio 2566
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ritchie was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and failure to control after a 2009 incident.
- A motion to suppress was denied; trial was set for March 22, 2010.
- On that date, the court effectively dismissed the case with a handwritten entry stating dismissal with prejudice.
- The State did not appeal the dismissal.
- The State refiled the charges on March 29, 2010 under the same case number.
- On May 7, 2010, the court issued a nunc pro tunc entry stating the prior dismissal was without prejudice due to a clerical error, and Ritchie moved to dismiss the refiled charges and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nunc pro tunc entry can correct a dismissal that was with prejudice. | State contends there was clerical error; nunc pro tunc proper. | Ritchie argues nunc pro tunc cannot alter a substantive dismissal. | Yes; nunc pro tunc cannot change to without prejudice; reversal of the nunc pro tunc entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cook's Estate, 19 Ohio St.2d 121 (Ohio 1969) (clarifies nunc pro tunc limited to clerical corrections)
- State v. Greulich, 61 Ohio App.3d 22 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (nunc pro tunc to reflect prior judicial action, not to correct substantive errors)
- State v. Breedlove, 46 Ohio App.3d 78 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (limits nunc pro tunc to clerical corrections)
- Caprita v. Caprita, 145 Ohio St.5 (Ohio 1945) (nunc pro tunc as clerical correction in execution of ministerial act)
- Brown v. L.A. Wells Construction Co., 143 Ohio St.580 (Ohio 1944) (limits of nunc pro tunc corrections)
- Dentsply Internatl., Inc. v. Kostas, 26 Ohio App.3d 116 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (nunc pro tunc use restricted to reflecting what court actually decided)