State v. Errett ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Errett, 2017-Ohio-7339.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2016-CA-31
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2015-CR-458
:
RACHEL A. ERRETT : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 25th day of August, 2017.
...........
MEGAN M. FARLEY, Atty. Reg. No. 0088515, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark
County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Fourth Floor, Springfield, Ohio
45502
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CARL BRYAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0086838, 120 West Second Street, Suite 603, Dayton,
Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
WELBAUM, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Rachel A. Errett, appeals from her conviction and
sentence in the Clark County Court of Common Pleas after pleading no contest to one
count of theft of drugs in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree. In
support of her appeal, Errett raises a single assignment of error claiming that the judgment
entry of conviction issued by the trial court on March 31, 2016, incorrectly states that she
entered a guilty plea to the theft of drugs charge. The State concedes, and we agree,
that Errett entered a no contest plea to the charge in question and that the plea recorded
in the judgment entry of conviction is a clerical error.
{¶ 2} “Crim.R. 36 provides that clerical mistakes in judgments may be corrected at
any time. A nunc pro tunc entry may be used to correct a judgment by making it reflect
what actually happened.” State v. Cole, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26122, 2015-Ohio-
3793, ¶ 9, citing State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142,
¶ 20. Given the clerical error in Errett’s judgment entry of conviction, it is appropriate to
remand the matter for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc entry that reflects the plea
Errett actually entered. Id.{¶ 3} Errett’s sole assignment of error is sustained. That part of the trial court’s
judgment entry stating that Errett entered a plea of guilty is reversed; the case is
remanded for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc entry that reflects Errett’s no contest
plea. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
.............
-3-
HALL, P.J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Megan M. Farley
Carl Bryan
Hon. Richard J. O’Neill