State v. Roehrig

[Cite as State v. Roehrig, 2015-Ohio-5187.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
DEFIANCE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 4-15-15
v.
PAUL B. ROEHRIG III, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Defiance Municipal Court
Trial Court No. TR15-1386A&B
Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: December 14, 2015
APPEARANCES:
Ian A. Weber for Appellant
Carson L. Slade for Appellee
Case No. 4-15-15
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Paul B. Roehrig III, appeals the July 6, 2015
“nunc pro tunc” judgment entry of the Defiance Municipal Court amending its
July 2, 2015 judgment to reflect the suspension of Roehrig’s operator’s license for
six months commencing on July 2, 2015. On appeal, Roehrig argues that the trial
court lacked the authority to impose a more restrictive license suspension in the
“nunc pro tunc” entry than the one it imposed on the record at the original
sentencing hearing.
{¶2} On March 28, 2015, Roehrig was stopped and arrested for OVI, in
violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and a tail light and license plate light offense,
in violation of R.C. 4513.05. Roehrig initially entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} On July 2, 2015, Roehrig appeared in open court to enter a guilty plea
pursuant to an agreement with the state. In exchange for tendering his guilty plea,
the state moved for leave to amend the OVI charge to a charge of Reckless
Operation as a second offense, in violation of R.C. 4511.20. The state
recommended the following sentence: a Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar fine and
costs, thirty days in jail, with twenty-seven days suspended on the condition that
Roehrig not commit any similar infractions for a period of two years, and a six-
month suspension of Roehrig’s operator’s license effective March 28, 2015. The
state also moved to dismiss the tail light and license plate light violation.
-2-
Case No. 4-15-15
{¶4} At the hearing, the trial court permitted the state to amend the charge
and accepted Roehrig’s guilty plea. The trial court imposed the following
sentence on the record.
We will follow the recommendation on the amended charge. It
will be a Two Hundred Fifty Dollar fine, court costs, thirty days
and a six-month license suspension relating back to the date of the
stop, March 28th. Limited driving privileges could be granted
for the balance of that suspension upon proof of insurance and a
letter outlining what you would need for those limited driving
privileges. They’ll help you out with that at the Clerk’s office.
Your ALS will be vacated as a result of pleading to this charge,
and we’ll substitute the driver intervention program for the
three days in jail.
(Doc. No. 26 at 3) (emphasis added).
{¶5} The trial court issued a judgment entry journalizing its acceptance of
Roehrig’s guilty plea and the imposition of the sentence stated above.
Specifically, the trial court imposed in its judgment entry a six-month suspension
of Roehrig’s operator’s license effective March 28, 2015.
{¶6} Four days later, on July 6, 2015, for reasons not apparent in the record,
the trial court sua sponte issued a “nunc pro tunc” judgment entry implementing
the following orders:
Defendant appeared for a change of plea on the 2nd day of July,
2015, and the Court suspended his operator’s license for a
period of six (6) months effective March 28, 2015;
WHEREUPON, the Court does hereby ORDER that the
Judgment Entry file stamped July 2, 2015, be amended to reflect
-3-
Case No. 4-15-15
that the defendant’s operator’s license is suspended for a period
of six (6) months commencing on July 2, 2015.
All Orders contained in the Judgment Entry file-stamped July 2,
2015, in the above captioned matter not affected by this
amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
SO ORDERED.
(Doc. No. 16).
{¶7} This appeal followed with Roehrig asserting the following assignment
of error.
THE TRIAL COURT LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO
RESENTENCE APPELLANT IMPOSING A MORE
SERVERE AND RESTRICTIVE SENTENCE AFTER
IMPOSITION OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE, AND IS
CONTRARY TO LAW.
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Roehrig contends that the trial court
lacked the authority to amend its former judgment because there was no clerical
error or mistake that could be corrected under Crim.R. 36. Roehrig further claims
the trial court erred in modifying its final criminal judgment because it imposed a
more restrictive sanction than the one announced on the record at sentencing and
journalized in the original judgment entry when it sua sponte amended the
effective date delaying the commencement of his six-month operator’s license
suspension. Notably, the state concedes that the trial court’s actions amounted to a
“resentencing” which it lacked the authority to do.
-4-
Case No. 4-15-15
{¶9} It is well-settled that trial courts lack authority to reconsider their own
valid final judgments in criminal cases, with two exceptions: (1) when a void
sentence has been imposed, and (2) when the judgment contains a clerical error.
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705, ¶ 14; State v. Burton, 12th
Dist. Clermont No. CA2013–09–071, 2014-Ohio-1692, ¶ 13. With respect to the
second exception, trial courts possess the authority to correct errors in judgment
entries so that the record speaks the truth. State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio
St.3d 158, 163-164 (1995); see also Crim.R. 36 (providing 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).”
Errors subject to correction by the court include a clerical error, mistake, or
omission that is mechanical in nature and apparent on the record and do not
involve a legal decision or judgment. Miller at ¶ 15.
{¶10} Nunc pro tunc entries are used to make the record reflect what the
court actually decided and not what the court might or should have decided or
what the court intended to decide. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-
Ohio-5204, ¶ 18. Thus, “[a] court may not use a nunc pro tunc entry to impose a
sanction that the court did not impose as part of the sentence.” Miller at syllabus.
{¶11} The transcript of the proceedings establishes that the trial court
imposed a six-month suspension of Roehrig’s operator’s license effective March
-5-
Case No. 4-15-15
28, 2015. The original July 2, 2015 judgment entry accurately reflected the
license suspension imposed by the trial court on the record. Thus, the record is
devoid of any evidence invoking the trial court’s authority under Crim.R. 36 to
issue a nunc pro tunc for the purpose of correcting a clerical error, mistake, or
omission in the record. Moreover, we have found no authority permitting the trial
court to modify a final criminal sentence after journalization. See generally State
v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-6553 (explaining the general rule that
a trial court lacks authority to modify a final criminal judgment). Accordingly, we
find merit in Roehrig’s argument that the trial court lacked authority to modify the
July 2, 2015 sentencing entry after journalization of the criminal conviction and
sentence.
{¶12} Based upon the foregoing, the assignment of error is sustained and
we reverse the July 6, 2015 judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for
execution of the original sentence.
Judgment Reversed and
Cause Remanded
ROGERS, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr
-6-