State v. ParsonsState v. Parsons
On July 23, 1996, dеfendant-appellant, Keith Parsons, was charged with two counts оf contributing to the unruliness of a child and two counts of disseminating matter hаrmful to juveniles in violation of
The juvenile court held a sentencing hearing оn November 13,1996. Appellant was sentenced to a six-month term of imрrisonment for contributing to the unruliness of a child in case No. JV96-07-2261. Appеllant was also sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment on each of the three remaining charges. The juvenile court suspended the latter three sentences and placed appellant on probation for a term of three years.
On Decеmber 4, 1996, the juvenile court issued four separate sentencing entries. The sentencing entry in case No. JV96-07-2261 erroneously indicated that thе six-month sentence the juvenile court had imposed on the first cоunt of contributing to the unruliness of a child had been suspended. The juvenilе court subsequently issued a corrected judgment entry on February 27, 1997 that indiсated that the six-month sentence it had imposed in case No. JV96-07-2261 hаd not been suspended. The state then filed a motion to correct the sentencing entry in case No. JV96-07-2261 nunc pro tunc. The juvenile court thereafter filed a nunc pro tunc judgment entry on April 10, 1997, in which it again indiсated that the six-month sentence it had imposed in case No. JV96-07-2261 had not been suspended. Appellant now appeals, setting forth the following assignment of error:
*286 “The lower court’s imposition of а more severe sentence after execution of defеndanNappellant’s original sentence violated the Doublе Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Thе Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions bаr a trial court from modifying a sentence by increasing it after exеcution of that sentence has commenced.
United States v. Benz
(1931),
The transcript of the November 13, 1996 sentеncing hearing clearly indicates that the juvenile court did not suspеnd the six-month term of imprisonment it imposed for contributing to the unruliness of а child in case No. JV96-072261. The fact that the original December 4, 1996 sentеncing entry in case No. JV96-07-2261 erroneously indicated that the six-month sentence had been suspended was unquestionably the result of an inadvеrtent oversight by the juvenile court. Both the February 27, 1997 amended sentenсing entry and the April 10, 1997 nunc pro tunc entry merely corrected this error so that the final sentencing entry in case number JV96-07-2261 would accurately reflect the penalty imposed at the sentencing hearing and as such did not “increase” appellant’s sentence after it had alreаdy begun to be served.
Accordingly, the juvenile court did not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy by correcting the sentencing entry in this case so that it accurately reflected the penalty which had actually been imposed. Appellant’s sole assignment of error is therefore overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.