Court Opinion

ID: 9882806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:20:18.338798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:53.674466
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Frost, 2023-Ohio-3637.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                                    No. 20AP-416
v.                                                :             (C.P.C. No. 20CR-2306)

Savon A. Frost,                                   :          (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                            D E C I S I O N

                                      Rendered on October 5, 2023

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L.
                 Prichard for appellee.

                 On brief: Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, and Timothy E.
                 Pierce for appellant.

                   APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
MENTEL, J.
        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Savon A. Frost, appeals from the August 21, 2020
judgment entry finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter with a three-year firearm
specification in violation of R.C. 2903.03, and 2941.145, a felony of the first degree;
tampering with evidence with a one-year firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2921.12
and 2941.141, a felony of the third degree. For the reasons that follow, we affirm and
remand with instructions.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
        {¶ 2} On June 3, 2020, an indictment was filed against appellant alleging two
counts of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02, unclassified felonies (Counts One and Two);
and three counts of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12, felonies of the
third degree (Counts Three through Five). The murder charge included three-year firearm
No. 20AP-416                                                                                 2

specifications, and one of the tampering charges (Count Four) included a one-year firearm
specification.
       {¶ 3} On July 24, 2020, appellant entered a plea of guilty as part of a negotiated
plea agreement to the stipulated lesser included offense of Count One, voluntary
manslaughter with a three-year firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2903.03 and
2941.145, a felony of the first degree; and Count Four of the indictment, tampering with
evidence with a one-year firearm specification, in violation of R.C. 2921.12 and 2941.141, a
felony of the third degree. The remaining charges were dismissed nolle prosequi.
       {¶ 4} On August 20, 2020, the trial court, sentenced appellant to 10-15 years for
voluntary manslaughter plus an additional three years for the firearm specification. The
trial court also imposed one year for the tampering charge and an additional one year for
the firearm specification. Relevant to the instant appeal, the trial court made a consecutive
sentence finding and ordered the voluntary manslaughter and tampering offenses to be
served consecutively with each other. Appellant was given 409 days of jail-time credit.
       {¶ 5} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on September 8, 2020. After
multiple continuances, this matter was fully briefed by the parties on March 15, 2021. In
appellant’s initial brief, he alleged five assignments of error, which largely concerned facial
constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act. On July 19, 2021, the parties filed a joint
notice of waiver of oral argument. On April 12, 2022, the parties filed a motion to stay this
case pending the resolution of cases before the Supreme Court of Ohio in State of Ohio v.
Hacker, No. 2020-1496 and State of Ohio v. Simmons, No. 2021-0532. This court granted
the joint motion, and the matter was stayed on April 25, 2022. On July 26, 2023, the
Supreme Court issued its decision in Hacker and Simmons overruling the facial
constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act. State v. Hacker, __Ohio St.3d __,
2023-Ohio-2535. On September 20, 2023, appellant filed a motion to terminate stay,
reactivate case, and dismiss assignments of error one through four of the appeal, which this
court granted. Accordingly, this case will focus on the sole remaining assignment of error
concerning whether the lower court erred by not incorporating its consecutive sentence
findings into the sentencing entry.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
       {¶ 6} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:
No. 20AP-416                                                                                               3

                The trial court plainly erred when it failed to incorporate its
                consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) into
                the August 21, 2020 sentencing entry.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
        Appellant’s Fifth Assignment of Error
        {¶ 7} In appellant’s sole remaining assignment of error, appellant argues that the
trial court plainly erred when it, despite imposing consecutive sentences, failed to include
it in the sentencing entry. The state concedes in its brief that the trial court failed to make
a consecutive sentence finding in the judgment entry.
        {¶ 8} This court previously addressed this issue in State v. Montgomery, 10th Dist.
No. 14AP-1057, 2015-Ohio-3255, ¶ 22. In Montgomery, we wrote, “[n]ot journalizing the
required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in the judgment entry does not render consecutive
sentences contrary to law when the trial court makes those findings during the sentencing
hearing.” Montgomery at ¶ 22; see also State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-
3177, ¶ 30 (“A trial court’s inadvertent failure to incorporate the statutory findings in the
sentencing entry after properly making those findings at the sentencing hearing does not
render the sentence contrary to law.”). However, the trial court would generally still be
required to journalize its findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in a nunc pro tunc entry
correcting the clerical error of omission. Montgomery at ¶ 22, citing Bonnell at ¶ 30. As
this is an administrative correction, a new sentencing hearing, on this matter alone, is not
required. Id., citing State v. Rivera, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-460, 2015-Ohio-1731, ¶ 6 (finding
the journalization of a nunc pro tunc entry to provide the previously made
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings “does not require a new sentencing hearing to be conducted.”).
        {¶ 9} Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s fifth assignment of error. However, this
matter is remanded with instructions for the trial court to correct the clerical mistake
relating to its R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in a subsequent nunc pro tunc entry.
IV. CONCLUSION
        {¶ 10} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s sole remaining assignment of error is
overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.1
This matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of entering a nunc pro

1 On September 20, 2023, this court granted its motion to dismiss assignments of error one through four.
No. 20AP-416                                                                            4

tunc entry reflecting the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings the court made during the sentencing
hearing.
                                                                  Judgment affirmed;
                                                      cause remanded with instructions.

                    BEATTY BLUNT, P.J. and DORRIAN, J., concur.

                                   _____________