State v. Johnson
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 72
Syllabus
Drug possession trafficking consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) nunc pro tunc divested of jurisdiction clerical error. The trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were clearly and convincingly supported by the record such that consecutive sentences were not improper. The trial court was divested of jurisdiction when appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and therefore, the trial court's subsequent nunc pro tunc entry is a nullity. Upon remand, the trial court shall issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the clerical error in the original sentencing journal entry.
Judges: Kilbane
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. ZaleskiOhio Supreme Court· 2006-11-22· cited 371×
- State v. GwynneOhio Supreme Court· 2023-10-25· cited 232×
- State v. WashingtonOhio Supreme Court· 2013-11-14· cited 221×
- State v. MillerOhio Supreme Court· 2010-11-30· cited 171×
- In re S.J.Ohio Supreme Court· 2005-07-13· cited 130×
- State v. NiaOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-06-12· cited 71×
- State Ex Rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court· 2011-02-16· cited 69×
- State ex rel. Rock v. School Emp. Retirement Bd.Ohio Supreme Court· 2002-08-21· cited 55×
- State v. ReindlOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-07-29· cited 26×
- State v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-11-18· cited 8×
- State v. ChisltonOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-03-11· cited 8×
- State v. McDonaldOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-02-16· cited 6×
- State v. TrujilloOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-11-09· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.