State v. Sailes, 2016 Ohio 5132

Michael Sailes pleaded guilty in eight Cuyahoga County cases to theft, misuse of a credit card, and identity theft and was initially sentenced to an aggregate seven years imprisonment.
The trial court imposed three consecutive sentences (1, 3, and 3 years) and ordered other case sentences to run concurrently; restitution was ordered to multiple entities including Giant Eagle, Sam’s Club, and First Merit Bank.
After sentencing, the court entered nunc pro tunc journal entries adding two additional consecutive sentences, increasing the aggregate term to nine years.
Sailes appealed, assigning error that the nunc pro tunc entries do not reflect what occurred at sentencing, that the court failed to journalize statutory findings for consecutive sentences, and that restitution to certain entities (non-victims) was improper.
The State conceded the first two assignments (vacate nunc pro tunc entries and remand to include findings) and conceded that restitution to First Merit Bank should be vacated but opposed vacating restitution to Giant Eagle and Sam’s Club.
The court held the nunc pro tunc entries invalid, remanded for proper journalization of consecutive-sentence findings, and declined to disturb agreed-upon restitution to Giant Eagle and Sam’s Club because the restitution was part of an agreed, lawful sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of nunc pro tunc sentencing entries	State concedes entries do not reflect court’s oral sentencing and should be vacated	N/A — argues entries changed sentence after hearing	Vacated: nunc pro tunc entries cannot record changes not made at sentencing; remand to reflect transcript
Failure to journalize statutory findings for consecutive sentences	State concedes trial court made findings at hearing but failed to include them in journal entry	Court must include R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in written entry	Reversed in part and remanded for journal entry to incorporate statutory findings
Restitution to third parties not named in indictments	State defends restitution where defendant and state agreed as part of plea	Sailes argues restitution to non-victims (stores) is improper	Denied relief: agreed-upon restitution is enforceable and not appealable when lawful and imposed as part of plea
Restitution to First Merit Bank	State concedes this award should be vacated	Sailes seeks vacatur	Restitution to First Merit vacated as conceded by State

Doe v. Catholic Diocese, 158 Ohio App.3d 49 (2004) (nunc pro tunc entries limited to clerical corrections; cannot be used to alter what actually occurred)