State v. Stewart, 2020 Ohio 6743

In 1997 Larry Stewart was convicted of aggravated murder with capital and firearm specifications and sentenced to "30 years to life."
Stewart did not raise any claim about the phrasing of his sentence or a Rule 43 violation on direct appeal.
In June 2019 Stewart filed a motion to vacate a void sentence, arguing the judgment entry did not follow R.C. 2929.03(D)(2) and should read "life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving thirty full years."
The trial court denied the motion, finding the court had announced the correct phrasing at sentencing and relying on recent Ohio authority distinguishing void from voidable sentencing errors.
The Eighth District affirmed: it held the sentencing-phrase error (if any) is voidable, not void, and therefore not subject to collateral attack in postconviction proceedings; Stewart’s Crim.R. 43 claim was barred by res judicata.
The court noted Stewart conceded the correct oral sentence was imposed in open court and that a nunc pro tunc entry could correct the journal entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence "30 years to life" is unauthorized because R.C. 2929.03(D)(2) requires "life imprisonment with parole eligibility after thirty full years"	State: sentence lawful because court announced the correct phrase at sentencing; even phrasing errors are voidable.	Stewart: journal entry is contrary to statutory language and therefore void/unauthorized.	Court: phrasing error (if any) is voidable under Ohio Supreme Court precedent and not subject to collateral attack; motion denied.
Whether Stewart’s motion to vacate is a viable postconviction vehicle to correct the alleged sentencing error	State: postconviction relief unavailable because the error is voidable, not void; remedy was to object at sentencing or on direct appeal.	Stewart: relied on State ex rel. Stewart v. Russo and argued the sentence is void and thus vacatable.	Court: denied motion; Henderson/Harper line makes error voidable, so relief cannot be obtained via postconviction motion.
Whether imposing one sentence in open court but journalizing a different sentence outside the defendant’s presence violated Crim.R. 43 and due process	State: issue was available on direct appeal and is now barred by res judicata.	Stewart: argued journal entry differed from oral sentence, violating Crim.R. 43 and due process.	Court: claim is barred by res judicata; additionally Stewart conceded the oral sentence was correct and a nunc pro tunc entry could remedy the journal.

State v. Qualls, 967 N.E.2d 718 (Ohio 2012) (nunc pro tunc entry may be used to make journal reflect the oral sentence)
State v. Davis, 894 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 2008) (res judicata bars raising an available sentencing/Crim.R. 43 claim collaterally)