State v. Stevens
2015 Ohio 4009
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Cory J. Stevens pleaded guilty to one count of rape on March 25, 2013 and was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after ten years.
- The April 17, 2013 sentencing entry stated the ten-year parole-eligibility period was “not a mandatory term.”
- While Stevens’ post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea was pending, the trial court issued a June 4, 2013 nunc pro tunc correcting the entry to state the ten-year period “was a mandatory term.”
- The trial court denied Stevens’ motion to withdraw his plea on November 13, 2013 and later denied his motion to vacate a void sentence challenging the nunc pro tunc.
- On appeal, Stevens argued (1) the nunc pro tunc impermissibly changed his sentence without his presence (Crim.R. 43) rendering the sentence void, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Stevens failed to show the nunc pro tunc did more than correct a clerical error (no sentencing transcript was in the record), and the challenge to denial of the plea‑withdrawal motion was untimely/outside the scope of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the June 4, 2013 nunc pro tunc voided the sentence by materially changing it without Stevens’ presence (Crim.R. 43) | Stevens: nunc pro tunc changed sentence to mandatory parole‑eligibility and constituted resentencing without him present, so sentence is void | State: nunc pro tunc was a clerical correction reflecting what occurred in court; trial court may correct clerical mistakes | Court: Affirmed. No transcript or record evidence showed the correction did more than fix a clerical error; appellant bears burden to show a judgment is void. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Stevens’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea | Stevens: denial was erroneous | State: denial of a post‑sentence motion to withdraw plea is a final, appealable order; appeal of that denial was not timely and no delayed appeal was sought | Court: Overruled. The denial was outside the scope of this appeal and Stevens did not timely appeal the denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court may issue nunc pro tunc entries to correct clerical mistakes in sentencing entries but cannot use nunc pro tunc to supply or alter judicial findings that were not made in open court)
- State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010) (nunc pro tunc cannot be used to correct omissions that amount to a failure to actually make required findings or to inform defendant of sentence)