[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-1371.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 113196

v. :

JAMES JOHNSON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 11, 2024

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-17-614707-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Gregory J. Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

James Johnson, pro se.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J.:

James Johnson brings the instant appeal challenging the trial court’s 

denial of his motion to issue a final, appealable order stemming from the trial court’s 

issuance of a nunc pro tunc entry while Johnson’s direct appeal was pending. After 

a careful review of the relevant record and law, this court affirms. 
I. Factual and Procedural History

In February 2017, Johnson was charged in a 19-count indictment 

stemming from the homicides of Brandon James and Rasheed Bandy. State v. 

Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109041, 2020-Ohio-5255, ¶ 3 (“Johnson I”). 

Johnson’s first trial occurred in January 2018, and the jurors found Johnson guilty 

of all charges except for aggravated murder. Id. at ¶ 7. Johnson, however, moved 

for a mistrial based on mischaracterization of a witness. The state did not oppose

the motion, and the trial court granted it. Johnson’s second trial commenced in July 

2018, and the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a second mistrial. 

Id. at ¶ 8. In July 2019, a jury was empaneled for a third time and returned guilty 

verdicts as to all counts. Id. at ¶ 9. Because Johnson had been acquitted of 

aggravated murder, the counts in the indictment were renumbered for the 

subsequent trials. 

Johnson received a sentence of life without parole plus an additional 

149 years. Id. at ¶ 11. Johnson I was timely filed thereafter, and on November 12, 

2020, this court affirmed Johnson’s convictions but sua sponte remanded the 

matter for a limited nunc pro tunc entry correcting the counts and specific sentences 

to reflect those that were used in the third jury trial. Id. at ¶ 108.

While Johnson’s appeal was pending, however, the trial court issued a 

nunc pro tunc journal entry correcting the counts and sentences to reflect the correct 

offenses and count numbers. Nonetheless, in September 2022, Johnson filed a 

motion in the trial court asking the trial court to issue the corrected nunc pro tunc 
entry pursuant to this court’s decision in Johnson I. In May 2023, the trial court 

ruled on Johnson’s motion, finding that the motion was moot because the counts 

and offenses had already been corrected. 

On August 7, 2023, Johnson filed a motion titled “motion for a final 

appealable order pursuant to this court’s November 04, 2019 corrected sentence 

entry.” In this motion, Johnson argued that the nunc pro tunc sentencing entry “is 

not a final appealable order because he was not served with the corrected entry by 

the clerk of courts.” The state opposed, and the trial court denied the motion in 

September 2023. Johnson appealed, assigning two errors for our review: 

The trial court failed to issue a final appealable order pursuant to the 

trial court’s November 04, 2019, corrected sentence imposed upon the 

defendant-ap[p]ellant herein.

The trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant-appellant 

Johnson[’s] motion to vacate sentence/judgment for failure to meet the 

statutory requirements pursuant to a final appealable order. 

II. Law and Analysis

Johnson’s assignments of error are interrelated and can be addressed 

together. The crux of Johnson’s assignments of error is that the trial court’s nunc 

pro tunc entry correcting the numbering of the counts was defective or ineffective

based on the fact that he was not served with the nunc pro tunc entry. Johnson asks 

us to send “this matter back to the trial court to properly issue[] the corrected 

sentencing journal entry in this present case.” After a careful review of the record, 

we find that the trial court committed no error and overrule Johnson’s assignments 

of error.
Crim.R. 36 empowers a court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct 

“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.” A clerical mistake is a mistake or omission that does not involve a legal 

decision or judgment and is apparent from the record. State v. Miller, 127 Ohio 

St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705, 940, N.E.2d 924, ¶ 15, citing State ex rel. Cruzado v. 

Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 19. 

In the instant matter, the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry issued during 

the pendency of Johnson’s direct appeal was solely clerical; it did not require a legal 

decision, it merely changed the counts to reflect those that were on the jury verdict 

form.

While Ohio courts follow a general rule that a trial court is divested of 

jurisdiction “over matters that are inconsistent with the reviewing court’s 

jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment,” State ex rel. Rock v. School 

Emps. Retirement Bd., 96 Ohio St.3d 206, 2002-Ohio-3957, 772 N.E.2d 1197, ¶ 8, 

exceptions have been made where the trial court’s action aids the appeal. State v. 

Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427, 2013-Ohio-4982, 999 N.E.2d 661, ¶ 8. This court 

has also held that when a nunc pro tunc entry is directly related to and affects 

matters assigned as errors on appeal, the entry is inconsistent with this court’s 

jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the trial court’s judgment. State v. 

McDonald, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111724, 2023-Ohio-464, ¶ 15. The Tenth District 

has allowed such a situation in State v. Anderson, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-236, 
2011-Ohio-6667, ¶ 18-21, and the Second District in State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 24352, 2011-Ohio-5990, ¶ 14-17. We find that the trial court’s 

nunc pro tunc entry was not inconsistent with this court’s jurisdiction because the 

error relating to the labeling of counts and offenses had not been raised. Indeed, 

consistent with Washington, the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry actually operated 

to assist with the appeal by properly numbering the counts.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the nunc pro tunc was improper, 

which we conclude it is not, this situation does not afford Johnson the relief that he 

requests. The effect of a nunc pro tunc relates back to the date of the original 

judgment that it corrects. It “does not extend the time within which an appeal may 

be filed from the substance of the initial entry.” Perfection Stove Co. v. Scherer, 120 

Ohio St. 445, 448-449, 166 N.E. 376 (1929). Moreover, an appeal from a nunc pro 

tunc entry is limited to the rights created or denied by the later correction. DanielsRodgers v. Rodgers, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-202, 2015-Ohio-1974, ¶ 16. Since 

the nunc pro tunc merely corrected the labeling and numbering of the counts, to the 

extent there was any other error, it was available for Johnson to raise in his direct 

appeal. 

Lastly, Johnson seems to argue that the nunc pro tunc entry was 

improper because he was not served with a copy of it. A judgment is final for 

purposes of appeal when it contains (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the sentence, 

(3) the judge’s signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the 

journal by the clerk. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 
N.E.2d 142, ¶ 17, citing Crim.R. 32(C). The finality of a judgment entry for appeal 

purposes does not depend on service. To the extent Johnson makes this argument, 

we reject it. 

Based on the foregoing, we overrule all of Johnson’s assignments of 

error. 

III. Conclusion

We cannot afford Johnson the relief he requests because the nunc pro 

tunc entry did not create a new final, appealable order from which Johnson could 

appeal unless Johnson was attempting to raise error relating to the renumbering of 

his counts. 

Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

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. 

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

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR