Court Opinion

ID: 9908028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 17:08:22.152245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:46:49.293837
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Evans, 2023-Ohio-4416.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                           No. 112538
                 v.                               :

FRANK EVANS,                                      :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 7, 2023

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                             Case No. CR-22-670364-A

                                            Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, Steven N. Szelagiewicz, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Mary Catherine Corrigan, for appellant.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

                Defendant-appellant, Frank Evans, appeals from his March 20, 2023

judgment of conviction. The judgment sets forth Evans’s plea to one count of rape,

a first-degree felony and the imposition of a ten- to 15-year sentence under the
Reagan Tokes Law. After a thorough review of the facts and pertinent law, we vacate

and remand.

Factual and Procedural History

             The record demonstrates that in 2020, Evans raped his known 13-and-

one-half year-old child victim and told her not to tell anyone. The victim kept the

rape a secret until family members noticed she was gaining weight and took her for

medical treatment; it was discovered at that time that she was pregnant. The victim

gave birth at age 14; Evans denied that he had raped her. Testing by the Cuyahoga

County Medical Examiner’s Office confirmed that Evans is the father of the baby.

             In May 2022, Evans was charged with two counts of rape and one count

of endangering children. Evans sought, and was granted, independent testing at the

state’s expense. The independent testing concluded that Evans is the baby’s father.

Evans and the state of Ohio entered into plea negotiations, and Evans pleaded guilty

to one count of rape, a felony of the first degree. The remaining two counts were

dismissed.

             At the plea hearing, Evans’s counsel indicated that Evans was “aware of

the provisions of Reagan Tokes.” Tr. 16. The trial court also informed Evans at the

plea hearing that he would be subject to the Reagan Tokes Law at sentencing and

informed him of the possible maximum sentence, which included time under the

Reagan Tokes Law. Evans indicated that he understood. The matter proceeded to

a presentence investigation. During that process, Evans said that the victim sexually

assaulted him.
             At sentencing, the court again explained to Evans the Reagan Tokes

Law and Evans indicated that he understood. The court also explained its findings

under R.C. 2929.11 relative to the overriding principles of felony sentencing and

R.C. 2929.12 relative to the seriousness of the crime and recidivism factors. The

court stated the following in pronouncing its sentence: “I could impose a prison

term of 11 years for a felony of the first degree but I’m going to impose a sentence of

ten years.” Tr. 65.

             The trial court issued a judgment of conviction on March 8, 2023. The

judgment “imposes a prison sentence * * * of 10 years.” On March 20, 2013, the trial

court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment of conviction which “imposes a minimum

prison term of 10 years and a maximum prison term of 15 years.” Evans appeals,

presenting the following three assignments of error for our review:

      I.     The trial court’s sentence was contrary to law.

      II.    The trial court erred by using a nunc pro tunc journal entry to
             sentence appellant to an indefinite prison term.

      III.   The trial court erred by imposing an unconstitutional sentence
             pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act.

Law and Analysis

             We first consider Evans’s challenge, presented in his third assignment

of error, to the Reagan Tokes Law.

             Under the Reagan Tokes Law, qualifying first- and second-degree

felonies committed on or after March 22, 2019, are subject to the imposition of

indefinite sentences. Evans contends that the Reagan Tokes Law violates his
constitutional right to a trial by jury, the separation-of-powers doctrine, and due

process.

             On July 26, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in

State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, finding the Reagan Tokes Law

constitutional and determining the law does not violate the separation-of-powers

doctrine, the right to a jury trial, or the right to due process. Id. at ¶ 41. The

arguments presented in this case do not present novel issues or any new theory

challenging the constitutional validity of any aspect of the Reagan Tokes Law left

unaddressed by the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hacker.            Accordingly,

pursuant to Hacker, we overrule Evans’s third assignment of error.

             We next consider Evans’s second assignment of error, wherein he

contends that the trial court’s nunc pro tunc judgment was improper. We agree.

             Proper use of a nunc pro tunc entry is limited to correcting a clerical

error in a judgment or order so that the record reflects what the court actually did

or decided. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142,

¶ 18; State v. Wright, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107213, 2019-Ohio-1361, ¶ 18. A nunc

pro tunc entry cannot be used to supply omitted action or to indicate what the court

might or should have done or intended to do. State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 109091, 2020-Ohio-4467, ¶ 28; State v. Abner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81023,

2002-Ohio-6504, ¶ 22.

             Thus, while a nunc pro tunc entry can be used to correct a sentencing

entry to reflect the sentence the trial court actually imposed upon a defendant at a
sentencing hearing, it cannot be used to “resentence” a defendant or to “impose a

sanction that the court did not impose as part of the sentence” at the sentencing

hearing. State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109963, 2021-Ohio-3099, ¶ 14;

State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705, 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 16. “‘When

a court exceeds its power in entering a nunc pro tunc order, the resulting nunc pro

tunc order is invalid.’” State v. Walter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104443, 2017-Ohio-

466, ¶ 5, quoting State v. Senz, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 02CA0016, 2002-Ohio-6464,

¶ 12. Issuing a nunc pro tunc entry to impose an indefinite sentence under the

Reagan Tokes Law not imposed at the sentencing hearing is improper.

State v. Clausing, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110776, 2022-Ohio-1762, ¶ 14.

                In light of the above, the second assignment of error is sustained. The

nunc pro tunc entry is vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing.

                In light of our disposition of Evans’s second assignment of error, his

first   assignment     of   error   is   moot   and   we   decline   to   consider   it.

See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

                The sentence of March 20, 2023 is vacated; case remanded for

resentencing.

        It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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.

_______________________
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR