State v. Steinke
2014 Ohio 2059
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant-appellant Kristopher Steinke was indicted in two cases: CR-418568 for drug possession, possession of criminal tools, unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance, and carrying a concealed weapon; CR-420619 for murder with firearm specs, weapon under disability, tampering with evidence, and obstructing justice.
- In June 2002 Steinke pleaded guilty to drug possession in CR-418568 and to involuntary manslaughter with a three-year firearm specification in CR-420619; other charges were nolled.
- Before sentencing Steinke withdrew his pleas in both cases.
- In August 2002 Steinke again pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter (amended Count 1) with the firearm spec and to the charges in CR-418568; trial court sentenced to 13 years in CR-420619 and a total of 17 months to 11 months on CR-418568 charges, with sentences to run consecutively.
- Steinke appealed in State v. Steinke, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81785, 2003-Ohio-3527 (Steinke I), which affirmed but remanded for a clerical correction to show concurrent sentences in CR-418568.
- In 2011–2013 Steinke sought to withdraw his plea post-sentence and via postconviction motions; each attempt was denied or dismissed; he now appeals the trial court’s post-sentence denial and requests nunc pro tunc corrections to journal entries.
- The court affirms the judgment but remands to correct the plea journal entry nunc pro tunc to include the three-year firearm specification and to issue one entry of conviction nunc pro tunc in both cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearm specification was properly recorded as nolled in the journal entry | Steinke contends the journal entry omitted the firearm spec. | State contends the omission was clerical and can be corrected nunc pro tunc. | Clerical error; correction warranted nunc pro tunc. |
| Whether remand compliance was satisfied and a single conviction entry should be entered | Remand required proper conviction and sentence entry. | Trial court complied post-remand but needs correct single entry. | Remand mooted; require nunc pro tunc entry of conviction incorporating corrected plea and sentence. |
| Whether post-sentence motion to withdraw plea was properly denied under Crim.R. 32.1 and res judicata applies | Arguments could have been raised earlier or on direct appeal; appeal barred by res judicata. | Deserves review of postsentence withdrawal grounds. | Denied due to res judicata; no abuse of discretion shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Steinke, 2003-Ohio-3527 (2003) (affirmation with clerical-remand for concurrent sentences in CR-418568)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (Crim.R. 32.1 standard for postsentence withdrawal)
- State v. Caver, 2008-Ohio-6155 (2008) (Crim.R. 32.1 standard, abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Sneed, 2005-Ohio-1865 (2005) (res judicata applies to successive Crim.R. 32.1 motions)
- State v. Tinney, 2012-Ohio-72 (2012) (limited scope of postconviction relief; res judicata considerations)
- State v. Muhumed, 2012-Ohio-6155 (2012) (res judicata and Crim.R. 32.1)
- Steinke I, 2003-Ohio-3527 (2003) (affirmed convictions; remanded for clerical correction to reflect concurrent sentences)