Case ID: ohio-st-3d_137/html/0410-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daggett, Appellant, v. Bradshaw, Warden, Appellee.
    [Cite as Daggett v. Bradshaw, 137 Ohio St.3d 410, 2013-Ohio-4765.]
    
      (No. 2013-0562
    Submitted October 9, 2013
    Decided November 6, 2013.)
    Leotis M. Daggett, pro se.
    Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion to dismiss of appellee, Margaret Bradshaw, warden of the Richland Correctional Institution, and dismissing the petition of appellant, Leotis M. Daggett, for a writ of habeas corpus. On June 15, 2011, as part of a negotiated agreement, Daggett pled guilty to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to six years in prison. The sentencing entry stated that the robbery was a felony of the fourth degree. The sentencing court issued two nunc pro tunc orders to correct an error in the original entry. The first again said that the charge was a felony of the fourth degree; the second, issued on July 8, 2011, corrected the entry to reflect that the charge was a second-degree felony.

{¶ 2} Daggett argues that the sentencing court lacked authority to issue the nunc pro tunc entries and that he has already served the maximum sentence for a fourth-degree felony.

{¶ 3} Daggett’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, because he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal, and in general, sentencing orders are not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-2454, 866 N.E.2d 1084, ¶ 7.

{¶ 4} Moreover, a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error in a sentencing entry violates neither Crim.R. 32(C) nor State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, 943 N.E.2d 1010, ¶ 15; State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, ¶ 17-20.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.