[Cite as State v. Brooks, 2017-Ohio-4225.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-11-224 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 6/12/2017 

 : 

RODDRICK V. BROOKS, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR16-03-0390 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Scott N. Blauvelt, 315 South Monument Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendantappellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Roddrick V. Brooks, has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 
Butler CA2016-11-224 

- 2 - 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received we have accordingly examined the record and found one error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. 

{¶ 4} It appears that on September 9, 2016, appellant pled guilty in open court to one 

count of aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the second degree, and to a forfeiture 

specification indicating forfeiture in the amount of $1,145. It further appears that appellant 

signed a guilty plea and jury waiver detailing the above plea which was filed in the Butler 

County Court of Common Pleas on September 9, 2016. At a sentencing hearing held on 

October 27, 2016, the court acknowledged forfeiture of $1,145. On October 31, 2016, the 

common pleas court filed an order of forfeiture indicating that appellant had been found guilty 

of the forfeiture specification and ordering forfeiture. However, the common pleas court's 

judgment of conviction entry filed on November 1, 2016 does not include the forfeiture 

specification or the amount of the forfeiture. 

{¶ 5} Because the written plea agreement and the transcript of the plea hearing 

unequivocally indicate that appellant knowingly and intelligently pled guilty to aggravated 

trafficking in drugs with a forfeiture specification, it appears that the judgment of conviction 

entry should be amended to reflect appellant's plea of guilty to the forfeiture specification. 
Butler CA2016-11-224 

- 3 - 

The failure of the sentencing entry to include the forfeiture specification is clerical in nature. 

A trial court may issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct clerical mistakes in a sentencing entry 

so that it accurately reflects what the court actually decided. State v. Goodwin, 12th Dist. 

Butler No. CA2016-05-099, 2017-Ohio-2712. 

{¶ 6} Anders would seemingly dictate that this court appoint new counsel to brief and 

argue this issue. However, under the circumstances of this case we find that the omission 

constitutes plain error which we may take immediate action to remedy. See Penson v. Ohio, 

488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346 (1988). In all other respects, our review of the record discloses 

no other error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings before the common pleas 

court. 

{¶ 7} Therefore, it is the order of this court that the motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this matter is hereby reversed and 

remanded with instructions to issue a new judgment of conviction entry that reflects 

appellant's guilty plea to the forfeiture specification and a forfeiture in the amount of $1,145 in 

U.S. currency. 

 S. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.