Court Opinion

ID: 9955923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 18:10:04.406045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:39.301013
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. McDowell, 2024-Ohio-1209.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio                                      Court of Appeals No.    WD-23-026

        Appellee                                   Trial Court No. 2022CR0515

v.

James Williard McDowell, III                       DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                  Decided: March 29, 2024

                                               *****

        Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        David T. Harold, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Neil S. McElroy, for appellant.

                                               *****
        DUHART, J.

        {¶ 1} This case is before the court on appeal by appellant, James Willard McDowell,

III, from the April 17, 2023 judgment of the Wood County Common Pleas Court. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, but remand to the trial court for a

nunc pro tunc entry as described herein.
                                   Assignment of Error

       The trial court violated Mr. McDowell’s right to allocution and due process

       when it made findings in the Judgment Entry that were inconsistent with

       those made during the sentencing hearing.

                                        Background

       {¶ 2} On February 21, 2023, appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of

kidnapping, a violation of R.C. 2905.01(B)(1), (C)(1), a felony of the first degree. The

court accepted the plea and found appellant guilty. A sentencing hearing was held on

April 13, 2023. Both appellant and the victim spoke. Then, prior to imposing sentence,

the judge made the following comments relevant to this appeal.

              THE COURT:            * * * Kidnapping is a felony of the first degree,

       there is a presumption in favor of prison. The Court has reviewed the

       principles and purposes of sentencing in 2929.11, I’ve also reviewed the

       seriousness and recidivism factors in 2929.12. Two factors showing that

       his conduct is more serious; the victim suffered serious physical and

       psychological harm. Also, the offender’s relationship with the victim

       facilitated the offense. There’s no factors showing that it’s less serious.

       There is a factor showing that he is more likely to commit future crime, and

       that’s - - I’m going to say that he - - I can see his remorse today, but I don’t

       find that he has remorse. I’m comparing the statements that he made

       during the presentence investigation and the statements today with the

2.
     allegations that were made by the victim that were - - I think, were

     confirmed by the State’s witnesses that they brought forth today. The

     witnesses and the victim seemed to disagree with Mr. McDowell’s

     interpretation of what happened on May 30th. Being that, one, that they all

     think that Mr. McDowell forced the victim into the vehicle. She didn’t

     want to go anywhere, she was screaming, I don’t want to go with you, I’m

     afraid that you’re going to hurt me. Again, victim stated that. Those

     statements were confirmed by the witnesses that the State intended to call.

     I mean, such a - - I think such a gross misinterpretation of the events by Mr.

     McDowell shows that he does not have remorse. There are some factors

     that show that he’s less likely to commit future crime, those being that he

     has no prior juvenile delinquency adjudication. Also, I will note that he

     does have a very limited criminal history, couple of misdemeanors but

     nothing significant. And, again, that would show that he’s less likely to

     commit future crime. Mr. McDowell made many statements about his

     being a family man or being a good parent. This Court, today, is not here

     to determine whether Mr. McDowell is 100 percent bad or 100 percent

     good, the Court’s here today to determine an appropriate sentence for the

     actions that occurred on May 30th of 2022. Several text messages, coupled

     --well, Mr. McDowell, I think you need to accept the fact that the text

     messages, although you would never -- you claim to never want to follow

3.
       through on those text messages and those are a result of your anger, those

       text messages coupled with your actions on the date of the 30th show a

       different story. And maybe what was going on in your head was different,

       but the perception that that creates and the end result, clearly, is a different

       case that what is going on in your head. * * * (Emphasis added.)

       {¶ 3} The court then considered the record, the statements made at the hearing,

“the principles and purposes of sentencing, the seriousness and recidivism factors

relevant to the offense and the offender, [and] * * * the need for deterrence,

incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution” and found a prison sentence “consistent

with the principles and purposes of sentencing.” The court also found appellant was not

amenable to community control based upon “the seriousness of his conduct [and] the

impact of his actions on the victim” and further found that a prison sentence was

“reasonably necessary to deter Mr. McDowell from committing future crimes, and

reasonably necessary to protect the public and the victim.” The court sentenced appellant

to a minimum of six years in prison and an indefinite maximum term of nine years.

       {¶ 4} In contradiction to the judge’s statements at trial, the judgment entry

formalizing appellant’s sentence stated, inter alia, that the court found “Offender has a

history of criminal convictions” to be a factor showing a higher likelihood of recidivism,

and the only factor showing a lower likelihood of recidivism to be that “Offender has no

prior juvenile delinquency adjudication.”

       {¶ 5} Appellant appealed.

4.
                                           Analysis

       {¶ 6} Appellant contends that the trial court violated his rights to allocution and

due process when it listed his criminal history as a factor showing a higher likelihood of

recidivism, and a basis for its sentence, in the judgment entry. He argues that he had no

opportunity to address the trial court’s finding in the judgment entry that his “history of

criminal convictions” made the offense more serious when considering the R.C. 2929.12

factors, especially in light of the fact that this finding was contrary to the trial court’s

comments at the sentencing hearing.

       {¶ 7} The state counters that the statement in the judgment entry was merely “a

scrivener’s error” that did not affect the judgment and can be corrected with a nunc pro

tunc entry.

       {¶ 8} The record shows that the trial court afforded appellant his right of

allocution prior to imposing his prison term. As a result, appellant’s argument that he

was denied allocution because the trial court’s findings were not accurately reflected in

the judgment entry is unfounded and his assigned error is without merit. Put simply, the

error in the judgment entry is not a reversible error but merely a scrivener’s error that

may be corrected on remand.

       {¶ 9} “Crim.R. 36 provides that ‘[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other

parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission, may be

corrected by the court at any time.’ A nunc pro tunc entry ‘is a vehicle used to correct an

order issued which fails to reflect the court's true action.’ It is axiomatic that ‘a court

5.
possesses authority to correct errors in judgment entries so that the record speaks the

truth.’” (Citations omitted.) State v. Daniel, 2022-Ohio-1348, 188 N.E.3d 671, ¶ 29 (6th

Dist.). Here it is clear from the court’s comments at the sentencing hearing that

appellant’s criminal history was considered as a factor supporting the conclusion that he

was less likely to commit future crimes, and the statement to the contrary in the judgment

entry was merely a clerical mistake that can be corrected with a nunc pro tunc entry.

       {¶ 10} Accordingly, we find appellant’s assignment of error not well-taken. We

affirm the judgment of the Wood County Common Pleas Court. We remand this matter

to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect that the

trial court found that appellant’s history of criminal convictions to be a factor showing a

lower likelihood of recidivism. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is hereby ordered to pay

the costs incurred on appeal.

                                                                           Judgment affirmed
                                                                               and remanded.

6.
                                                                             State of Ohio
                                                                             v. McDowell
                                                                      C.A. No. WD-23-026

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                           JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, P.J.                                    JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                          JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

7.