[Cite as State v. Halsey, 2016-Ohio-7990.]

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 CASE NO. CA2016-01-001 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

 O P I N I O N 

 : 12/5/2016 

 - vs - 

 : 

WILLIAM D. HALSEY, : 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2009-03-0526 

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

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

Repper, Pagan, Cook Ltd., Christopher Pagan, 1501 First Avenue, Middletown, Ohio 45044, 

for defendant-appellee 

 

 M. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals a decision of the Butler County 

Court of Common Pleas denying its motion to issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry 

reflecting that defendant-appellee, William D. Halsey, is a Tier III sex offender. 

{¶ 2} Halsey was initially indicted for rape. He subsequently entered a guilty plea to a 

reduced charge of sexual battery. During the sentencing hearing, Halsey was properly 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 2 - 

advised by the trial judge, pursuant to R.C. 2950.03(A)(2), that he would be classified as a 

Tier III sex offender and would be required to register every 90 days for the rest of his life. 

Halsey signed an Explanation of Duties to Register as a Sex Offender or Child Victim 

Offender and was provided a copy as required by R.C. 2950.03(B)(1)(a), (3)(a). The trial 

court ordered that Halsey be subject to Tier III sex offender supervision, one year of intensive 

probation supervision, and two additional years of basic supervision. However, the 

sentencing entry that was subsequently journalized made no mention of Halsey's Tier III sex 

offender classification. The Explanation of Duties to Register as a Sex Offender or Child 

Victim Offender signed by Halsey was neither filed with the clerk of courts nor included in the 

case file. 

{¶ 3} Halsey successfully completed the terms of his probation and his case was 

terminated in 2012. However, Halsey continued to register with the Butler County Sheriff's 

Office as a Tier III sex offender as ordered by the trial court at the sentencing hearing. 

{¶ 4} In 2014, Halsey moved the trial court to vacate the sex offender classification 

portion of his sentence, arguing that the absence of a sex offender classification in the 

sentencing entry rendered the classification void. Halsey further argued that the termination 

of his case divested the trial court of jurisdiction to impose any further sanction upon him. 

The state opposed Halsey's motion. After a hearing, the trial court denied Halsey's motion 

without explanation. 

{¶ 5} Halsey appealed to this court. We upheld the trial court's denial of Halsey's 

motion, reasoning that 

the October 29, 2009 sentencing entry makes no mention of 

[Halsey's] Tier III sex offender classification. As a result, the trial 

court did not err in denying [Halsey's] motion to vacate his Tier III 

sex offender classification as there was nothing for the trial court 

to vacate. 

State v. Halsey, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-10-211, 2015-Ohio-3405, ¶ 14 (Halsey I). 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 3 - 

{¶ 6} Evidently, at some point, the state discovered the Explanation of Duties to 

Register as a Sex Offender or Child Victim Offender form that had been signed by Halsey at 

his original sentencing hearing but that had not been journalized. The record shows that 

prior to filing its brief, the state filed a motion with this court to supplement the record with the 

form. We granted the state's motion to supplement the record. 

{¶ 7} Following this court's opinion in Halsey I, the state moved the trial court to issue 

a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to include Halsey's classification as a Tier III sex offender. 

Halsey opposed the motion. On December 3, 2015, the trial court denied the state's motion 

on the grounds that the original sentencing entry was silent with regard to Halsey's sex 

offender classification, as opposed to being merely incorrect, and that Halsey's community 

control sanction had been successfully terminated. 

{¶ 8} The state appeals, raising one assignment of error: 

{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE STATE'S MOTION TO ISSUE 

A NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ENTRY. 

{¶ 10} This appeal raises the question of whether the omission of a Tier III sex 

offender classification from a sentencing entry may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry 

after the offender has completed the journalized sentence. The state argues that because 

Halsey was properly advised by the trial court of his Tier III sex offender classification at the 

sentencing hearing, the failure of the original sentencing entry to include the classification 

was a clerical error which may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry pursuant to Crim. R. 36. 

{¶ 11} Typically, clerical mistakes in judgment entries may be corrected by a nunc pro 

tunc entry at any time. In this regard Crim.R. 36 provides, "Clerical mistakes in judgments, 

orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or 

omission, may be corrected by the court at any time." We have observed that "the purpose 

of a nunc pro tunc entry is to have the judgment of the court reflect its true action." State v. 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 4 - 

Barnes, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-03-049, 2015-Ohio-651, ¶ 32. 

{¶ 12} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(a)(ii), classification of a criminal defendant as a 

Tier III sex offender must be included in the sentencing entry: 

The court shall include in the offender's sentence a statement 

that the offender is a tier III sex offender/child-victim offender, 

and the court shall comply with the requirements of section 

2950.03 of the Revised Code if * * * [t]he offender is being 

sentenced for a sexually oriented offense that the offender 

committed on or after January 1, 1997, and the offender is a tier 

III sex offender/child-victim offender relative to that offense. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 13} Several Ohio appellate districts have held that R.C. 2929.19(B)(3) requires 

inclusion of a Tier III sex offender classification in a sentencing entry and that its omission 

renders the sentence deficient. See, e.g., State v. Dalton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99661, 

2013-Ohio-5127, ¶ 11 ("R.C. 2929.19[B][3][a] requires a trial court to include in an offender's 

sentence a statement that the offender is a Tier III sex offender"); and State v. Morgan, 7th 

Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 126, 2014-Ohio-2625, ¶ 20 ("[T]the language of R.C. 

2929.19[B][3] requires the tier classification to be contained in the sentencing judgment 

entry"). Additionally, a sentencing court's oral advisement of a Tier III sex offender 

classification at the sentencing hearing does not satisfy R.C. 2929.19(B)(3). See Morgan at 

¶ 20; State v. Kase, 187 Ohio App.3d 590, 2010-Ohio-2688, ¶ 2 (7th Dist.); and State v. 

Straley, 4th Dist. Highland No. 12CA3, 2013-Ohio-3334, ¶ 17.1

{¶ 14} These cases make clear that the failure to include a Tier III sex offender 

classification in the sentencing entry renders the entry deficient, notwithstanding an oral 

advisement of the classification at the sentencing hearing. 

 

1. We note that earlier decisions, such as Kase, refer to R.C. 2929.19(B)(4), and not R.C. 2929.19(B)(3). R.C. 

2929.19(B)(4)(a) is the prior version of the statute and R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(a) is the current version of the statute. 

The language is identical in both versions. 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 5 - 

{¶ 15} Relying on Crim.R. 36 and Morgan and Dalton, the state argues that a trial 

court has jurisdiction to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct omission of a Tier III sex 

offender classification. The state also cites State v. Francys, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 

101069 thru 101071, 2014-Ohio-3597, and State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio5636, for the general proposition that a trial court retains jurisdiction under Crim.R. 36 to 

correct clerical errors in judgment entries "at any time." While Francys and Raber support 

the proposition advanced by the state, they must be read in conjunction with other decisions 

of the Ohio Supreme Court, discussed below, addressing whether that jurisdiction extends 

beyond the completion of the journalized sentence. 

{¶ 16} In both Dalton and Morgan, the appellate court remanded the case for the trial 

court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the omission of the Tier III sex offender 

classification in the sentencing entry. In both cases, the offender had been advised of his 

classification during the sentencing hearing. However, the state's argument is an extension 

of Dalton and Morgan, as neither case addressed whether a trial court's jurisdiction to correct 

clerical errors in judgment entries extends beyond the completion of the journalized 

sentence. Dalton and Morgan both involved defendants who were sentenced to years-long 

prison terms and where the issue of the omission of the Tier III sex offender classification 

was raised on direct appeal of the conviction. Presumably, both defendants were in prison 

serving their sentences at the time the appellate court remanded the matter to include the 

Tier III sex offender classification in a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry. Neither case 

specifically holds that the jurisdiction to correct clerical errors pursuant to Crim.R. 36 is 

unlimited or extends beyond completion of the journalized sentence. 

{¶ 17} The Ohio Supreme Court has detailed the various circumstances under which a 

trial court may review the sentence of a criminal defendant: 

First, when a sentence is subject to direct review, it may be 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 6 - 

modified; second, when the prison-sanction portion of a 

sentence that also includes a void sanction has not been 

completely served, the void sanction may be modified; and third, 

when the entirety of a prison sanction has been served, the 

defendant's expectation in finality in his sentence becomes 

paramount, and his sentence for that crime may no longer be 

modified. 

State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 2013-Ohio-5014, ¶ 18. 

{¶ 18} Clearly, a Tier III sex offender classification pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act 

("AWA") amendments is punitive and therefore part of the "sentence" referred to in Holdcroft. 

State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, ¶ 16 ("Following the enactment of 

S.B. 10, all doubt has been removed: R.C. Chapter 2950 is punitive"). 

{¶ 19} The state cites State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, and 

State v. Hodges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101145, 2014-Ohio-4690, asserting that the 

punitive nature of an AWA sex offender classification does not restrict the jurisdiction of a 

trial court to correct an omission in the sentencing entry. Bonnell and Hodges both involved 

a failure of the trial court to make the R.C. 2929.14(C) consecutive sentence findings. The 

state argues that like an AWA sex offender classification, consecutive sentences are also 

punitive. However, the issue here is not whether errors in sentencing entries touching upon 

punitive facets of the sentence may be corrected, but whether they may be corrected after 

completion of the journalized sentence. Neither Bonnell nor Hodges addresses that issue 

and neither case involved defendants who had completed the imposed prison sentence at 

the time their cases were remanded. 

{¶ 20} Cases involving the failure to include postrelease control in sentencing entries 

are instructive. 

{¶ 21} In Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395, 2006-Ohio-126, Hernandez was 

sentenced to a prison term. Hernandez was not notified of postrelease control at the 

sentencing hearing, and the sentencing entry made no reference to postrelease control. 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 7 - 

Hernandez completed his prison term and the adult parole authority placed him on 5 years 

postrelease control. Hernandez violated the terms of his postrelease control and the parole 

authority sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. Hernandez filed a petition for habeas 

corpus claiming that his incarceration was illegal. In granting the writ the Ohio Supreme 

Court stated, 

It is axiomatic that "[a] court of record speaks only through its 

journal entries." * * * Here, the trial court's sentencing entry 

specified only Hernandez's seven-year sentence, which he 

completed in February 2005. Because his only journalized 

sentence has now expired, habeas corpus is an appropriate 

remedy. 

(Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 30. 

{¶ 22} Subsequently, while referencing to Hernandez in a later opinion, the supreme 

court stated that "unless a sentencing entry that did not include notification of the imposition 

of postrelease control is corrected before the defendant completed the prison term for the 

offense for which postrelease control was to be imposed, postrelease control cannot be 

imposed." State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio-1111, ¶ 16. The court further 

explained, 

[W]hen the notification of postrelease control was properly given 

at the sentencing hearing, the essential purpose of notice has 

been fulfilled and there is no need for a new sentencing hearing 

to remedy the flaw. The original sentencing entry can be 

corrected to reflect what actually took place at the sentencing 

hearing, through a nunc pro tunc entry, as long as the correction 

is accomplished prior to the defendant's completion of his prison 

term. 

Id. at ¶ 24. 

{¶ 23} Thus, the supreme court has recognized, within the context of postrelease 

control, that proper notification at the sentencing hearing will not authorize correction of the 

sentencing entry after the journalized sentenced has been completed, notwithstanding the "at 

any time" language contained within Crim. R. 36. 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 8 - 

{¶ 24} We too have held that a sentencing entry which fails to include imposition of 

postrelease control may not be corrected after completion of the prison term for which postrelease control was imposed: 

However, postrelease control notification errors occurring at the 

sentencing hearing or failure to include any notification of 

postrelease control in the sentencing entry will require vacation 

of postrelease control if the defendant has been released from 

his original term of imprisonment. Under Qualls, this rationale 

also extends to the trial court's authority to correct a sentencing 

entry by issuing a nunc pro tunc entry, if the original sentencing 

entry contains no mention of postrelease control. 

(Citation omitted.) State v. Chasteen, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-12-247, 2013-Ohio3573, ¶ 30. 

{¶ 25} The state seeks to distinguish the postrelease control cases on the ground that 

postrelease control does not commence until after an offender is released from prison, 

whereas the sex offender registration duties commence upon entry of the judgment of 

conviction. See R.C. 2950.07(A)(3). 

{¶ 26} However, in order for a sanction to commence, it must first be imposed by the 

sentencing court. A sanction is imposed by the sentencing entry, not by what is said on the 

record during the sentencing hearing. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 at ¶ 29 ("a court speaks 

through its journal"). Because Hasley's sentencing entry never imposed a Tier III sex 

offender classification, he was never subject to the classification. 

{¶ 27} The state made this same argument in Halsey I. We implicitly rejected the 

argument that sex offender classification commences upon the entry of the sentence, when 

we affirmed the trial court's denial of Halsey's motion to vacate his sex offender classification 

on the ground there was nothing to vacate. If, as the state argues, sex offender classification 

does not require judicial action to impose it, we would not have found there was no sex 

offender classification to vacate. 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 9 - 

{¶ 28} The similarity between the imposition of postrelease control and sex offender 

classification (at least regarding Tier III sex offenders) belies the state's argument that 

postrelease control and Tier III sex offender classification should be subject to a different 

analysis for purposes of correcting an omission in the sentencing entry. 

{¶ 29} Pursuant to R.C. 2967.28(B), postrelease control is mandatory for certain felony 

offenses if a prison sentence is imposed, and must be included in the sentencing entry. R.C. 

2929.19(B)(2)(c) requires the sentencing court to give notice to an offender of postrelease 

control at sentencing. Similarly, Tier III sex offender classification is mandatory under R.C. 

2950.01(G) for those convicted of certain sexually-oriented offenses, R.C. 2950.03 requires 

notification of the classification and consequent duties at the sentencing hearing, and R.C. 

2929.19(B)(3)(a) requires inclusion of the Tier III sex offender classification in the sentencing 

entry. It is apparent that the statutory schemes for imposition of postrelease control and Tier 

III sex offender classification are substantially similar. 

{¶ 30} Recently, we specifically observed that correction of postrelease control and 

sex offender classification sentencing errors are to be treated similarly. State v. Metcalf, 12th 

Dist. Warren No. CA2015-03-022, 2016-Ohio-4923, ¶ 20-21. Metcalf involved a defendant 

who was convicted of a sexually-oriented offense giving rise to a Tier III sex offender 

classification. Metcalf was not notified of the sex offender classification at the sentencing 

hearing and the sentencing entry made no mention of a sex offender classification. Metcalf 

was sentenced to consecutive prison terms for the sexually-oriented offense and an 

unrelated postrelease control violation. The mistake was discovered after Metcalf had 

completed the sentence for the sexually-oriented offense but while he remained imprisoned 

on the postrelease control violation. Metcalf was brought before the sentencing court and 

advised of the imposition of the Tier III sex offender classification, and a new sentencing 

entry was journalized to reflect the Tier III sex offender classification. Relying upon Holdcroft,
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 10 - 

we reversed the imposition of the sex offender classification because Metcalf had completed 

the sentence for the sexually-oriented offense by the time the sex offender classification was 

imposed.2 In doing so, we noted that Holdcroft involved postrelease control, as opposed to 

sex offender classification, and commented, 

Although we recognize that Holdcroft involved the imposition of 

postrelease control, as opposed to the sexual offender 

classification at issue here, we note that the general rules and 

principles relied upon by the court were not limited to the issue of 

postrelease control. Rather, as previously noted, the Supreme 

Court recognized that "[n]either this court's jurisprudence nor 

Ohio's criminal-sentencing statutes allow a trial court to 

resentence a defendant for an offense when the defendant has 

already completed the prison sanction for that offense." 

Metcalf at ¶ 20. 

{¶ 31} Based upon the similarity in the postrelease control and Tier III sex offender 

classification statutory schemes, and based upon Hernadez, Qualls, Chasteen, and Metcalf, 

we find that the analysis for correction of postrelease control sentencing errors is applicable 

to correction of sentencing entries omitting Tier III sex offender classification. 

{¶ 32} Based upon the foregoing, we hold that the omission of a Tier III sex offender 

classification in a sentencing entry renders the sex offender classification void and may not 

be corrected after the defendant has completed the journalized sentence, regardless of 

whether the defendant was properly notified of the Tier III sex offender classification at 

sentencing. 

{¶ 33} Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the state's motion to issue a 

nunc pro tunc entry to include a Tier III sex offender classification for Halsey. The state's 

assignment of error is overruled. 

 

2. Metcalf involves a significant factual dissimilarity to this case in that he was not notified of his sex offender 

classification at the sentencing hearing as was Halsey in this case. Therefore, we do not rely upon Metcalf as it 

may relate to the jurisdiction of a trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the sentencing error involved 

in this case. Rather, we rely upon Metcalf solely as authority for the proposition that correction of postrelease 

control and Tier III sex offender classification sentencing errors be treated the same. 
Butler CA2016-01-001 

 - 11 - 

{¶ 34} Judgment affirmed. 

 S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.