State v. Walter, 2017 Ohio 466

In 2006 Terrance J. Walter was convicted of aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, and felonious assault; firearm specifications were attached and the trial court sentenced him to 34 years to life.
On direct appeal (Walter I) this court affirmed aggravated murder and felonious assault convictions but vacated the aggravated burglary convictions.
The trial court initially had separate journal entries; in 2016 Walter moved for a single final appealable order and for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the record to reflect the appellate decision.
The trial court granted the motion and entered a nunc pro tunc order in April 2016 vacating the aggravated burglary convictions and consolidating the sentencing entries.
Walter appealed, asserting (1) due process violation from issuing the nunc pro tunc entry after an appellate alteration of judgment (seeking de novo resentencing) and (2) entitlement to a new trial because of prejudicial evidentiary spillover from the vacated burglary counts.
The court affirmed the trial court: it held the nunc pro tunc entry properly reflected the appellate decision and rejected the new-trial argument as barred by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry violated due process and required de novo resentencing	State: nunc pro tunc was a proper record correction to reflect the appellate judgment	Walter: vacatur of burglary convictions materially altered the judgment; he was entitled to de novo resentencing	Court: nunc pro tunc correctly reflected the appellate decision; no de novo resentencing required
Whether Walter is entitled to a new trial due to prejudicial spillover of evidence admitted on vacated burglary counts	State: claim is untimely and was or could have been raised on direct appeal	Walter: evidence admitted on burglary counts prejudiced convictions on murder and assault, requiring a new trial	Court: claim barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal; no new trial

State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1995) (nunc pro tunc entries limited to reflecting what the court actually decided)
Reinbolt v. Reinbolt, 112 Ohio St. 526 (Ohio 1926) (nunc pro tunc entries used to make the record reflect the truth)
State ex rel. Phillips v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 116 Ohio St. 261 (Ohio 1927) (nunc pro tunc cannot modify an existing judgment)
Ferraro v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 149 Ohio App.3d 301 (Ohio App. 2002) (nunc pro tunc inappropriate for substantive changes to judgment)
National Life Ins. Co. v. Kohn, 133 Ohio St. 111 (Ohio 1937) (nunc pro tunc beyond a court’s power is invalid)