State v. Hastings

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 422

Syllabus

Although the trial court mistakenly indicated at the plea hearing that post-release control for Appellant's attempted burglary offense in Case No. 2016-CR-910 was discretionary, the trial court nevertheless partially complied with Crim.R. 11 by informing Appellant that he could be placed on post-release control. Therefore, because Appellant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the trial court's misstatement at the plea hearing, Appellant's guilty plea is valid. Furthermore, while the sentencing entry in Case No. 2014-CR-3848 includes the incorrect terms of post-release control, the entry can be corrected via a nunc pro tunc order since the trial court imposed the correct terms of post-release control at the sentencing hearing. Affirmed and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction to the sentencing entry in Case No. 2014-CR-3848.