Court Opinion

ID: 9802324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 09:03:27.028802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:38.720275
License: Public Domain

Sean C. Gallagher, Judge,
dissenting.
{¶ 19} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I would not find the order issued by the trial court following remand to be in conflict with State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. In my view, the order issued is complete, addressed all counts, and is not in direct conflict with what was originally stated on the record. The transcript from the June 17, 2010 hearing reflects that the court said that the defendant was out of compliance from August 27, 2009, to February 26, 2010, and that the maximum fine is $5,000 a day for each day out of compliance for each of the violations that have not been corrected. The court then referred to the figure of $915,000.
{¶ 20} I will concede the breakdown of the counts during the hearing could have been more thorough, but the trial court was clearly referring to all the counts, and the court unequivocally outlined those counts and the manner of conviction in the revised order dated May 11, 2011.
{¶ 21} The notice of appeal was filed on November 10, 2010. The briefs were in on March 2, 2011. The case was remanded to the trial court to address the Baker issue in April and returned to this court in May. While I understand the majority’s desire to see absolute symmetry between the transcript and the final *500journal entry, I do not see this as reaching the level of a Baker violation. Thus, I respectfully dissent.