Court Opinion

ID: 9368733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 20:07:40.745645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.468118
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Powell, 2023-Ohio-344.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NO. 2022-T-0068

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                   Court of Common Pleas

LEWIS C. POWELL, III,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2018 CR 00998
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                     Decided: January 6, 2023
                                  Judgment: Reversed and vacated

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Rhys B. Cartwright-Jones, 42 North Phelps Street, Youngstown, OH 44503 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Lewis Powell III, appeals from the Trumbull County Court of

Common Pleas following the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry reducing his jail time credit.

We reverse and vacate the trial court’s decision.

        {¶2}     On March 18, 2019, appellant pled guilty to one count of Carrying

Concealed Weapons, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) and

(F)(1); one count of Possession of Drugs, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(a); and one count of Aggravated Possession of Drugs, a felony of
the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a). The trial court sentenced

appellant to five years community control.

       {¶3}   Appellant violated his community control sanctions and appeared on July

13, 2020, for a violation hearing. He waived the hearing and pled guilty to the violations.

The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate prison term of 24 months to run

consecutive to a separate prison sentence imposed in Case No. 2019-CR-675. The trial

court’s sentencing entry stated that appellant “will receive credit for time served from

October 21, 2018 to March 20, 2019; July 29, 2019 to August 5, 2019; and October 4,

2019 to July 13, 2020, for a total of (443) days.”

       {¶4}   On December 16, 2020, appellant filed a pro se motion for jail-time credit

where he asserted that he had only received 151 days of jail time credit rather than the

443 he believed he was entitled to pursuant to the trial court’s sentencing entry. The trial

court did not rule on this motion.

       {¶5}   Instead, on July 14, 2021, the trial court issued a so-called “Nunc Pro Tunc

Entry on Sentence.” In that entry, the trial court overruled appellant’s Motion for Jail Time

Credit sub silentio and stated that appellant “will receive credit for time served from

October 21, 2018 to March 20, 2019, for a total of (151) days.”

       {¶6}   Appellant filed a Motion for Leave to File a Delayed Appeal which this Court

denied for failure to comply with App.R. 5 requirements.

       {¶7}   On June 27, 2022, appellant filed a corrected Motion for Leave to File a

Delayed Appeal. This Court granted the motion and appellant has asserted one

assignment of error.

       {¶8}   Appellant’s sole assignment of error states:

                                             2

Case No. 2022-T-0068
       {¶9}   “The trial court erred in entering the July 14, 2021 nunc pro tunc entry that

modified Powell’s jail time credit.”

       {¶10} Appellant argues that the trial court’s July 14, 2021 nunc pro tunc entry

reducing his jail time credit by 292 days was improper and a nullity because it modified

the final judgment of sentence. The State has conceded error and agrees that the trial

court’s nunc pro tunc entry was improper.

       {¶11} Crim.R. 36 authorizes the trial court to correct “[c]lerical mistakes in

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

oversight or omission * * * at any time.” A nunc pro nunc entry may be used to correct a

sentencing entry to reflect the sentence the trial court imposed at the sentencing hearing.

State v. Dixon, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2021-P-0114, 2022-Ohio-4158, citing State v.

Vaughn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103330, 2016- Ohio-3320, ¶ 21; State v. Fugate, 12th

Dist. Butler No. CA2000-02-031, 2000 WL 1708508, *2 (Nov. 13, 2000). However, this

power does not extend to “show what the court might or should have decided, or intended

to decide, but what it really did decide.” McKay v. McKay, 24 Ohio App.3d 74, 75, 493

N.E.2d 317 (11th Dist.1985). “The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to have the

judgment of the court reflect its true action. The power to enter a judgment nunc pro

tunc is restricted to placing upon the record evidence of judicial action which has actually

been taken.” Id. A modification of an earlier judgment entry may not change “what the

court actually decided” in its final entry of sentence. Id. at 76. “An improper nunc pro tunc

order is void.” State v. Jama, 189 Ohio App.3d 687, 2010-Ohio-4739, 939 N.E.2d 1309,

¶ 14 (10th Dist.).

                                             3

Case No. 2022-T-0068
       {¶12} In State v. Nixon, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0040, 2019-Ohio-1502, the

trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry adding consecutive sentence findings not

previously made and modifying its statement regarding jail time credit. Id. at ¶ 8. This

Court reversed in that case because the trial court did not initially make the requisite

consecutive findings at the sentencing hearing and because “the stated number of days

in the nunc pro tunc * * * is different than that provided in its original sentencing decision,

the change is an improper use of a nunc pro tunc.” Id. at ¶ 18, ¶23, citing State v. Miller,

127 Ohio St. 3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705, 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶16.

       {¶13} Similarly, in this case, the trial court’s nunc pro tunc sentencing entry stated

a number of jail time credit days different from its original sentencing entry. This did not

correct a mere clerical error, but altered the court’s initial sentence. This, the court could

not do. See McKay, supra, at 75.

       {¶14} Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error has merit. The Trumbull

County Court of Common Pleas’ decision is reversed and the July 14, 2021 nunc pro tunc

sentencing entry is vacated and the trial court is directed to enter an order confirming that

appellant is entitled to 443 days of jail time credit.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                               4

Case No. 2022-T-0068