[Cite as State v. Bradley, 2015-Ohio-319.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101590

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

DEANGELO BRADLEY

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, 

AND REMANDED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-13-580620-A 

BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., Celebrezze, A.J., and Jones, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 29, 2015 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

BY: Jeffrey Gamso 

Assistant Public Defender 

310 Lakeside Avenue 

Suite 200 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: John Patrick Colan 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Deangelo Bradley (“Bradley”), appeals his sentence and raises 

the following two assignments of error for our review: 

I. The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed costs and fees in the 

journalized sentencing entry after it had announced at the sentencing hearing that 

costs and fees would be waived. 

II. The trial court committed error in imposing restitution in an uncertain amount. 

{¶2} The state concedes both errors in its appellee brief but failed to comply with 

Loc.App.R. 16(B), which states: 

When a party concedes an error that is dispositive of the entire appeal, the party 

conceding the error shall file a separate notice of conceded error either in lieu of 

or in addition to their responsive brief. Once all briefing is completed, the appeal 

will be randomly assigned to a merit panel for review. The appeal will be 

considered submitted on the briefs unless the assigned panel sets an oral argument 

date. 

Nevertheless, after reviewing the record, we agree the trial court made these errors. We, 

therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment in part and remand the case to the trial court to correct 

the errors in Bradley’s sentence. 

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶3} Bradley pleaded guilty to two counts of theft, two counts of burglary, and two counts 

of grand theft. The court sentenced Bradley to a four-year prison term followed by two years of 

community control sanctions. As part of the community control sanctions, the court ordered 

Bradley to participate in a rehabilitation program at a community-based correctional facility 

(“CBCF”) to address his drug addiction and employment concerns. With respect to costs and 

fees, the court stated in open court: 
If you want to appeal this, I’m going to appoint the Public Defender to represent 

you on appeal. I’m going to find that you’re indigent while you’re in prison. 

I’m going to waive your costs and fees. 

* * * And any transcript costs or filing fees will be paid for by the State because 

of your indigent status. 

Notwithstanding the court’s announcement in open court that court costs and fees were waived, 

the sentencing entry states, in relevant part: 

The defendant is ordered to perform CCWS in lieu of paying costs, paying fees. 

* * * CCWS starts when on CCS and after CBCF is completed. * * * 

The court hereby enters judgment against defendant in an amount equal to the 

costs of this prosecution. 

{¶4} With respect to restitution, the parties stipulated at the sentencing hearing that 

Bradley would pay the victims the amount of damages they suffered less any insurance proceeds 

they receive. (Tr. 45, 54.) The sentencing entry states: 

Restitution ordered in the amount of $7,500 to victim named in indictment less 

insurance proceeds. (Count 6) 

Restitution ordered in the amount of $1,400 to the victim in indictment * * * less 

insurance proceeds. (Count 10) 

{¶5} Bradley now appeals the court’s order of court costs, fees, and restitution in the 

sentencing entry, and, as previously stated, the state concedes both errors. 

II. Law and Analysis 

A. Costs and Fees

{¶6} In the first assignment of error, Bradley argues the trial court abused its discretion 

when it imposed court costs and fees in the sentencing entry after it had stated at the sentencing 

hearing that costs and fees were waived due to Bradley’s indigency. Bradley contends that 

because the sentencing entry is inconsistent with the trial court pronouncement in open court that 

court costs and fees were waived, this case should be remanded to the trial court for the issuance 
of a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the sentencing entry to reflect what the court stated at the 

hearing. 

{¶7} Although a court speaks through its journal entries, clerical errors may be corrected 

at any time in order to conform to the transcript of the proceedings. State v. Steinke, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 81785, 2003-Ohio-3527, ¶ 47; Crim.R. 36. Trial courts retain continuing 

jurisdiction to correct these clerical errors in judgments with a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect what 

the court actually decided. State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 

2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 18-19. 

{¶8} In this case, the court announced in open court that it waived Bradley’s court costs 

and fees. Yet, the sentencing entry states that Bradley “is ordered to perform CCWS in lieu of: 

paying costs, paying fees,” and the court entered judgment against Bradley “in an amount equal 

to the costs of prosecution.” Therefore, because the sentencing entry is inconsistent with the 

court’s decision in open court to waive court costs and fees, the sentencing entry should be 

corrected by a nunc pro tunc to accurately reflect the court’s decision at the sentencing hearing. 

{¶9} The first assignment of error is sustained. 

B. Restitution

{¶10} In the second assignment of error, Bradley argues the trial court committed error by 

imposing an unspecified amount of restitution. R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), which governs restitution, 

states: “If the court imposes restitution, at sentencing, the court shall determine the amount of 

restitution to be made by the offender.” Under the plain language of the statute, the trial court 

must determine the actual amount of restitution the defendant must pay the victim if it orders 

restitution as part of the sentence. 
{¶11} The sentencing entry in this case requires that Bradley pay certain amounts of 

restitution to the victims. However, the actual amount Bradley must pay for restitution is not 

specified in the journal entry because it requires subtraction of an unknown amount of insurance 

proceeds before Bradley’s liability can actually be determined. Therefore, the trial court’s order 

of restitution fails to comply with R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), and the second assignment of error is 

sustained. 

III. Conclusion

{¶12} We conclude the trial court erred when it ordered Bradley to perform CCWS in lieu 

of paying court costs and fees in the sentencing entry, when the court waived the costs and fees in 

open court at the sentencing hearing. We further conclude the trial court erred in failing to 

specify the amount Bradley must pay to the victims in restitution. 

{¶13} Accordingly, Bradley’s assigned errors are sustained. The trial court’s judgment is 

affirmed in part and reversed in part. We remand this case to the trial court to issue a nunc pro 

tunc entry reflecting the fact that the court waived court costs and fees. The trial court is also 

instructed to hold a hearing to determine the actual amount of restitution Bradley must pay to the 

victims. 

It is ordered that appellee pay costs herein taxed. Costs waived. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas 

court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, 

any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of 

sentence. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., A.J., and 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR