State v. Lunsford

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 2327

Syllabus

Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); sex-offender registration requirements; nunc pro tunc. Appellant's sentence was not contrary to law where the record reflects that the sentence was in the statutory range, the trial court made all the requisite consecutive-sentence findings, those findings were supported by the record, and the court considered the tenets of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 on the record and noted that it considered all requirements of law in its sentencing entry. Trial court erred when it failed to include appellant's designation as a sex offender in its sentencing entry or the registration requirements. Further, the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue a nunc-pro-tunc order to correct the sentencing entry after the appeal had been filed because the issue was raised on appeal. Finally, the case must be remanded for resentencing where the trial court notified the appellant of his status as a sex offender but only partially notified him of the registration requirements; accordingly, a nunc-pro-tunc entry would not serve to correct the previous sentencing entry where the advisements were not presented at sentencing.