[Cite as State v. Eggleton, 2012-Ohio-4942.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98289 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

GEORGE EGGLETON 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-455487 

BEFORE: Sweeney, J., Stewart, P.J., and Rocco, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 25, 2012
APPELLANT 

George Eggleton, Pro Se 

No. 480-767 

Richland Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 8107 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

Mark J. Mahoney 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Ninth Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, George Eggleton, appeals after being re-sentenced for 

his convictions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm but remand with instructions to 

correct a clerical error in the journal entry. 

{¶2} Defendant pled guilty in 2005 to the following: aggravated robbery, a first 

degree felony, with firearm and repeat violent offender specifications as well as a notice 

of prior conviction; failure to comply with order, signal of police officer, a third degree 

felony; carrying concealed weapons, a felony of the fourth degree; and having weapons 

while under disability, a felony of the third degree. At that time, the court ordered 

defendant to serve an aggregate prison sentence of 13 years. In 2006, this court vacated 

his sentences and remanded for resentencing due, in part, to the improper imposition of 

postrelease control. See State v. Eggleton, 8th Dist. No. 86551, 2006-Ohio-2213. 

Defendant was resentenced on June 8, 2006, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal in 

State v. Eggleton, 8th Dist. No. 88400, 2007-Ohio-2506. However, he did not challenge 

his sentence as being void based on the improper imposition of postrelease control. 

{¶3} Defendant filed a motion in the trial court alleging his resentencing was 

void because he was not properly advised of postrelease control. The State agreed that 

the resentence did not include the proper term of postrelease control. The State moved 
for a stay of the resentencing pending the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. 

Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958.1

 

{¶4} In 2010, the trial court ordered that defendant be returned for re-sentencing. 

 The trial court conducted the resentencing hearing on July 20, 2010. The controlling 

law at that time required the trial court to hold a de novo sentencing hearing. Id. at 

paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. The trial court proceeded to impose an 

aggregate sentence of 11 years. The journal entry also added that “counts one and three 

are mandatory time” and advised that the five year term of postrelease control was 

mandatory. Defendant’s appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with App.R. 9(B). 

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for resentencing that was denied and defendant’s 

appeal was dismissed. 

{¶5} Defendant then filed a motion to correct his sentence or for specific 

performance, claiming that the journal entry erroneously indicated that counts one and 

three are mandatory time. The State does not dispute this contention but asserts that the 

only mandatory component of defendant’s sentence is his five year term of postrelease 

control. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, which forms the basis of this appeal. 

Defendant asserts the following error for our review: 

 I. 

 1

State v. Singleton, has been effectively overruled by the holding in State v. 

Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (resentencing is 

limited to proper imposition of post release control and res judicata applies to all 

other aspects of the sentence.) 

 
The trial court committed reversible error when it denied George Eggleton’s 

Motion for Correction to Sentence and Motion to Effect Specific 

Performance when the judgment was unlawfully altered at his resentencing 

hearing on July 13, 2010. 

{¶6} The only issue appears to involve that portion of the trial court’s journal 

entry that indicated “counts one and three are mandatory time.” The State does not 

address this language and instead argues that the trial court properly imposed a mandatory 

five year term of postrelease control. The only portion of counts one or three that 

involved a mandatory prison term was the firearm specification. Accordingly, the 

indication that “counts one and three are mandatory time” is not entirely accurate. We 

note that there is no other mention in the record that counts one and three involved 

mandatory time (beyond the firearm specification) and the trial court’s previous 

sentencing journal entries did not include this unclear provision, which is an apparent 

clerical error. Pursuant to Crim.R. 36, the trial court may correct clerical mistakes in 

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

oversight or omission at any time. Accordingly, this assignment of error is sustained in 

part. This matter is remanded with instructions to correct the journal entry to delete the 

language that “counts one and three are mandatory time” or clarify that it pertains only to 

the term imposed for the firearm specification. The judgment is affirmed in all other 

respects. 

{¶7} Judgment affirmed and remanded for correction of the journal entry. 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 be sent to said 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. 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR