[Cite as State v. Guyton, 2014-Ohio-1999.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

EARNEST G. GUYTON, JR. 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 13CA010443 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE No. CR27928 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: May 12, 2014 

 

BELFANCE, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Ernest G. Guyton, Jr. appeals from the judgment of the 

Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to correct a clerical error. For the 

reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

I. 

{¶2} In 1983, Mr. Guyton pleaded guilty to aggravated murder along with a 

specification and aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to “life imprisonment with parole 

eligibility after serving thirty full years” for aggravated murder and seven to twenty-five years 

for aggravated burglary to run consecutively to each other and to sentences for other unrelated 

offenses. Mr. Guyton’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Guyton, 18 

Ohio App.3d 101, 101 (9th Dist.1984). 

{¶3} In 2011, Mr. Guyton filed a motion to “Correct Clerical Mistake in Judgment 

Entry Arising from Oversight or Omission Pursuant to Crim.R. 36(A) with Combined Motion for 
2 

 

De Novo Resentencing Hearing as though Sentencing had Never Previously Occurred.” The 

trial court subsequently issued an entry denying the motion. While Mr. Guyton filed a notice of 

appeal from that entry, however, his attempted appeal was dismissed as untimely. In 2013, Mr. 

Guyton filed a “Motion to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment Entry due to Oversight or 

Omission Pursuant to Crim.R. 36(A).” In that motion Mr. Guyton asserted that the trial court’s 

sentence for aggravated murder imposed at the sentencing hearing was not correctly reflected in 

the judgment entry. Specifically, Mr. Guyton maintained that the trial court’s statement at the 

sentencing hearing that he was sentenced to “thirty years to life without consideration of parole 

until after thirty years” was not accurately reflected in the trial court’s judgment entry because 

the judgment entry stated that Mr. Guyton was sentenced to “thirty full years to life.” The trial 

court summarily denied the motion. 

{¶4} Mr. Guyton has appealed, raising four assignments of error for our review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY TRIAL COUNSEL AND APPELLANT 

(SIC) COUNSEL IN HIS DIRECT APPEAL IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS 

UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEAS OF 

GUILTY IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS: A) A SINGLE JUDGE 

ACCEPTED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE CHARGE AND THE 

SPECIFICATION AND IN SO DOING SHOULD HAVE MADE AN 

INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE 

SPECIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 

CRIMINAL RULE 11(C)(3); (B) A THREE JUDGE PANEL ACCEPTED A 

PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE CHARGE AND THE SPECIFICATION YET 

FAILED TO MAKE A SPECIFIC DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR 

NOT THE OFFENSE APPELLANT PLEAD[ED] GUILTY TO SHOULD BE 
3 

 

DETERMINED TO BE A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE; I.E., 

AGGRAVATED MURDER WITHOUT A SPECIFICATION. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

THE COURT ERRED IN FAILURE TO DECLARE THE SPECIFICATION IN 

OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2929.04(A)(7) UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS 

APPLIED TO APPELLANT. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT INFORMING APPELLANT OF THE 

CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL RULE 

11(C)(2)(a). 

{¶5} In Mr. Guyton’s four assignments of error he raises issues not raised in his 

“Motion to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment Entry due to Oversight or Omission Pursuant to 

Crim.R. 36(A)[,]” the denial of which is the subject of this appeal. Accordingly, the trial court 

did not have the opportunity to consider these arguments, and we decline to pass on such issues 

in the first instance.1

 See State v. Thomas, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010424, 2014-Ohio-64, ¶ 

9. Mr. Guyton’s contention in his motion was that the trial court’s sentencing entry contained a 

clerical error. However, Mr. Guyton has not raised this issue on appeal, and none of the issues 

he has raised point to any clericals errors. Mr. Guyton has not demonstrated that the trial court 

erred in denying his motion. Thus, his four assignments of error are overruled. 

III. 

{¶6} In light of the foregoing, we overrule Mr. Guyton’s assignments of error and 

affirm the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 1

 We note, however, that his second through fourth assignments of error raise issues 

previously addressed in his direct appeal. See Guyton at 101-102, 104. 
4 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of 

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 EVE V. BELFANCE 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, J. 

WHITMORE, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ERNEST G. GUYTON, JR., pro se, Appellant. 

DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.