State v. GrenterState v. Grenter
Judgment: Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Thomas L. Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047-1092 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Arthur A. Grenter, pro se, PID: 552-453, Marion Cоrrectional Institution, P.O. Box 57, Marion, OH 43301-0057 (Defendant-Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Arthur A. Grenter, appeals the decision of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Plеas denying his Motion for Revised Judgment Entry of Sentence. Because this motion was not the appropriate vehicle for effecting the result Mr. Grenter desired, and the substantive matters he asserts on appeal are barred by res judicata, we affirm the decision of the trial court as to Mr. Grenter’s substantive claims. However, we remand the case to the trial court for the very limited purpose of entering a nunc pro
{¶2} Substantive Facts and Procedural History
{¶3} On June 9, 2008, Mr. Grenter was found guilty, by wаy of an Alford plea, of Complicity to Arson in violation of
{¶4} In August 2009, Mr. Grenter filed a
{¶5} “[1.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Defendant-Appellant in denial of the Defense Motion for a Revised Judgment Entry of Sentence by Judgment Entry of January 14, 2011.
{¶6} “[2.] The Court has a duty and inherent authority to issue a Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment Entry to make the recоrd conform to that which already occurred in Open Court August 6, 2008.”
{¶7} Mr. Grenter’s Appeal is Barred by Res Judicata
{¶9} Mr. Grenter’s assignments of error address the issue of conforming the judgment entry on sentence to reflect that which occurred in open court during his sentencing hearing. The arguments underlying his motion and appellate briefs, and thе relief sought from this court, however, delve into subjects well beyond nunc pro tunc orders, treading into substantive matters reserved for direct appеals.
{¶10} The essence of his appeal is that because the sentencing entry orders restitution but does not set forth the amount of restitution that was indеed stated in open court at the sentencing hearing, the sentencing order is interlocutory. In his motion before the trial court, Mr. Grenter asked that а revised entry be journalized “rectifying the Interlocutory restitution portion by Deletion.” His motion before the trial court also raised other “errors,” nаmely a “failure” to consider his present and future ability to pay restitution and sanctions, and “error” in ordering restitution to an insurance company.
{¶11} “[A] сonvicted defendant is precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeаl from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the triаl which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on appeal from that judgment.” State v. Szefcyk (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 96.
{¶13} Mr. Grenter argues that his sentence is not yet an appealable order, arguing instead that the judgment entry is interlocutory in nature. We find this argument unpersuasive, as his case is distinguishable from all of the authorities he cites to supрort this contention. Unlike the cases cited, where the trial court failed to even determine the amount of restitution, the trial court sub judice did, in faсt, determine the amount of restitution to be paid. The specified amount, however, was inadvertently excluded from the judgment entry – constituting a mere сlerical error in an otherwise final appealable order.
{¶14} Mr. Grenter’s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶15} The Trial Court Retains Jurisdiction to Correct the Clerical Error
{¶16} Although Mr. Grenter’s substantive claims are barred by the application of the doctrine of res judicata, we note that a discrepancy does exist between the sentence the trial court ordered in open court and the judgment entry on sentence. Specifically, thе trial court ordered Mr. Grenter to pay restitution in the sum of $239,989
{¶17}
{¶18} A review of the record indicates that the trial court, during the sentencing hearing, ordered Mr. Grenter to pay restitution in the specific amount of $239,989. The judgment entry, however, indicates that restitution was ordered, but fails to indicate in what amount. Because the trial court’s intention is quite cleаr from the record, and the missing amount on the judgment entry is clearly a mere clerical error, we find that Mr. Grenter’s second assignment of error has merit, but not for the reasons asserted, and not to the extent of the ultimate relief sought, that is, the deletion of the restitution order. Thus, we remand this case to thе trial court for the limited purpose of the trial court
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.,
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
concur.