State v. Wooden
2014 Ohio 316
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Wooden pled guilty to Count 2 (robbery, a second-degree felony) on 12/16/2004; Counts 1, 3–5 were dismissed; sentenced 3/3/2005 to four years of community control.
- On remand after State v. Wooden (2006) reversal, the trial court resentenced on 4/25/2006 to three years’ imprisonment, but the entry mis-stated the charged count (Count 1 instead of Count 2).
- The notice of commitment listed a release date of 10/26/2007.
- On 11/21/2012, Wooden moved to void the judgment entry, asserting improper post-release control (PRC) notification and unresolved Count 2.
- The trial court denied the motion on 5/9/2013; Wooden appeals asserting two assignments of error about PRC notification (R.C. 2967.28) and Crim.R. 32(C) compliance.
- The appellate court partially sustains and partially overrules, concluding the clerical error may be corrected nunc pro tunc and remands for correction; the first assignment is deemed moot under prior Wooden precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRC notice compliance | Wooden argues PRC notification was not properly given in the judgment. | State argues notification does not require inclusion in the judgment entry; other forms suffice. | First assignment moot; no remedy under this appeal. |
| Crim.R. 32(C) compliance | Entry incorrectly states Count 1 as the plea; flaw renders entry interlocutory. | Error is clerical; nunc pro tunc correction is proper. | Second assignment sustained in part and overruled in part; remanded for nunc pro tunc correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haddix, 2013-Ohio-1974 (5th Dist. 2013) (clerical error correction via nunc pro tunc in sentencing entry)
- State v. Powell, 2011-Ohio-5006 (9th Dist. 2011) (clerical error; remedy is nunc pro tunc sentencing entry)
- State v. Harris, 2007-Ohio-3308 (1st Dist. 2007) (clerical error correction in sentencing entry via nunc pro tunc (followed in part))
- Montavon, 2013-Ohio-2009 (10th Dist. 2013) (appeal not moot when challenge concerns sentence length; need underlying conviction reversal for remedy)
- Columbus v. Duff, 2005-Ohio-2299 (10th Dist. 2005) (nunc pro tunc correction to reflect proper offense where the judgment recites wrong charge)
- Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224 (1994) (syllabus: substantial stake survives judgment; mootness analysis limited when challenging conviction)
- State v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 236 (1975) (syllabus: appeal moot if defendant has paid fine or completed sentence and no collateral consequences)
- State v. Wooden, 2013-Ohio-3600 (10th Dist. No. 13AP-159 (Ohio App. 2013)) (mootness analysis concerning PRC and sentencing-void arguments; appellate mootness guidance)