Court Opinion

ID: 9882710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:18:53.680582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:48.219554
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. King, 2023-Ohio-3635.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             :
                                                            No. 113015
                 v.                              :

LORENZO KING,                                    :

                 Defendant-Appellant.            :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 5, 2023

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Case No. CR-23-677631-A

                                           Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, Alan Dowling, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
                 for appellee.

                 Gina Villa, for appellant.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

                Defendant-appellant, Lorenzo King, appeals his sentence, rendered

after he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and assault. The state has filed a notice

of conceded error. We sustain the assignments of error and reverse and remand the

case for resentencing and imposition of jail-time credit.
             On June 28, 2023, King pleaded guilty to one count of attempted

robbery, a felony of the fourth degree, and one count of assault, a first-degree

misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced King to 18 months for attempted robbery

consecutive to 180 days for assault. The trial court did not grant King any jail-time

credit.

             King filed a notice of appeal, raising the following assignments of error,

which are combined for review:

      I. The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for a
      misdemeanor and felony.

      II. The trial court erred by entering a nunc pro tunc order for a matter
      which is not merely clerical.

      III. The trial court erred by issuing a nunc pro tunc order after the case
      was appealed.

      IV. The trial court erred by failing to impose jail time credit.

             The state of Ohio filed a notice of conceded error, conceding all assigned

errors, acknowledging that the trial court was without jurisdiction to file a nunc pro

tunc order once the appeal had been filed, that the nunc pro tunc order cannot

correct King’s improper sentence, and that the trial court failed to give King jail-time

credit. The state further conceded pursuant to State v. Polus, 145 Ohio St.3d 266,

2016-Ohio-655, 48 N.E.3d 355, that the trial court erred in running the sentence for

the misdemeanor consecutively with the sentence for the felony.

             King filed a notice of appeal on July 25, 2023. On July 28, 2023, the

trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order removing the consecutive language from the
sentencing journal entry, so that his sentences would run concurrent instead of

consecutive.

               Nunc pro tunc orders are appropriate remedies to cure clerical errors

but cannot “reflect * * * what the court might or should have decided.” State ex rel.

DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236, 2011-Ohio-235, 943 N.E.2d 535, ¶ 17, citing

State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276, 2002-Ohio-6323, 779 N.E.2d 223.

               A nunc pro tunc entry is not the proper method by which to correct

King’s sentence; his sentence may be corrected through a resentencing hearing, one

which is limited to the purpose of amending his sentence from consecutive to

concurrent service.

               Moreover, the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue the nunc pro

tunc entry amending King’s sentence. ““[O]nce an appeal is perfected, the trial court

is divested of jurisdiction over matters that are inconsistent with the reviewing

court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment.”” State v. Aarons,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110313, 2021-Ohio-3671, ¶ 20, quoting State ex rel.

Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 129

Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-626, 950 N.E.2d 149, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Rock v.

School Emps. Retirement Bd., 96 Ohio St.3d 206, 2002-Ohio-3957, 772 N.E.2d

1197, ¶ 8.

               In Aarons, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a “blanket”

sentence on multiple counts. After the defendant filed his notice of appeal, the trial

court issue several nunc pro tunc entries attempting to correct its mistake. This
court found that the entries “directly related to and affected matters assigned as

error on appeal and were, therefore, inconsistent” with the court’s jurisdiction to

reverse, modify, or affirm the trial court's judgment. Id. at ¶ 24. This court

concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue its “corrected” entries. Id.

              Likewise, in this case, the trial court’s attempt at issuing a corrected

entry was improper because the court did not have the jurisdiction to correct King’s

sentence once King filed a notice of appeal, and, further, a nunc pro tunc entry was

the improper means by which to correct the sentence.

              Finally, the trial court failed to give King credit for approximately 142

days he had already served in jail. On remand, the trial court is to award King jail-

time credit. See State v. Thompson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 10236, 2015-Ohio-

3882, ¶ 23 (A trial court’s failure to award jail-time credit constitutes an error that

may be addressed on appeal.).

              The assignments of error are sustained. The case is remanded for

resentencing, limited to running King’s sentences concurrent, and for the court to

award him proper jail-time credit.

              Judgment reversed; case remanded.

      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

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR