16 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Waltersgreen2 sentences2023Adams No. 15CA1009, 2016-Ohio-5783, ¶ 2 (although appellant did not object to the imposition of the sentence at the sentencing hearing, the sentence imposed by the trial court was * * * contrary to law, and therefore constituted plain error). 2023Adams No. 15CA1009, 2016-Ohio-5783, ¶ 2 (“[A]lthough appellant did not object to the imposition of the sentence at the sentencing hearing, the sentence imposed by the trial court was not authorized by law and contrary to law, and therefore constituted plain error.”); and State v. Ayers, 10th Dist. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2025State v. Green, 2022-Ohio-3922, ¶ 7-8 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Aarons, 2021-Ohio-3671, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). “‘When a court exceeds its power in entering a nunc pro tunc order, the resulting nunc pro tunc order is invalid.’” State v. Walter, 2017-Ohio-466, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Senz, 2002-Ohio-6464 , ¶ 12 (9th Dist.), citing National Life Ins. 2025“A nunc pro tunc entry cannot be used to resentence a defendant or to impose a sanction that the court did not impose as part of the sentence at the sentencing hearing, but it can be used to correct a sentencing entry to reflect the sentence the trial court actually imposed on a defendant at a sentencing hearing.” State v. Green, 2022-Ohio-3922, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). {¶ 22} Upon review, nunc pro tunc entries are appropriate here to correct the scrivener’s error and to reflect what the trial court actually decided at the sentencing hearing. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ayersgreen2 sentences2023Franklin No. 13AP-371, 2014-Ohio-276, ¶ 15 (“[W]here the trial court failed to make the requisite findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences, appellant’s sentence was contrary to law and constituted plain error.”). 2022Franklin No. 13AP- 371, 2014-Ohio-276, ¶ 15 (where the trial court failed to make the requisite findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences, appellant’s sentence was contrary to law and constituted plain error). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Aaronsgreen2 sentences2025A nunc pro tunc entry cannot be used to resentence a defendant or to impose a sanction that the court did not impose as part of the sentence at the sentencing hearing, but it can be used to correct a sentencing entry to reflect the sentence the trial court actually imposed on a defendant at a sentencing hearing. [State v.] Aarons [ 2021-Ohio-3671 ] at ¶ 26, citing State v. Smith, 8th Dist. 2025A nunc pro tunc entry cannot be used to resentence a defendant or to impose a sanction that the court did not impose as part of the sentence at the sentencing hearing, but it can be used to correct a sentencing entry to reflect the sentence the trial court actually imposed on a defendant at a sentencing hearing. [State v.] Aarons [ 2021-Ohio-3671 ] at ¶ 26, citing State v. Smith, 8th Dist. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Coxgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Cox, 2025-Ohio-307, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.). 8. {¶ 23} Accordingly, the State’s assignment of error on cross-appeal is well-taken. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bryangreen1 sentence2025State v. Bryan, 2019-Ohio-2980, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Santiago, 2015- Ohio-1824, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waltergreen1 sentence2025State v. Green, 2022-Ohio-3922, ¶ 7-8 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Aarons, 2021-Ohio-3671, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). “‘When a court exceeds its power in entering a nunc pro tunc order, the resulting nunc pro tunc order is invalid.’” State v. Walter, 2017-Ohio-466, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Senz, 2002-Ohio-6464 , ¶ 12 (9th Dist.), citing National Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Polleygreen1 sentence2022Ottawa No. OT-19-039, 2020-Ohio-3213, ¶ 5, fn. 1 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rollandgreen1 sentence2016No. 12 MA 68, 2013-Ohio-2950, ¶ 27 (while rejecting the defendant’s argument that the court failed to inform him of the mandatory nature of the sentence at the sentencing hearing). {¶25} In support of arguing for the extension of the void sanction doctrine to this case, Appellant quotes: “Crimes are statutory, as are the penalties therefor, and the only sentence which a trial court may impose is that provided for by statute. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Edmonson
green
2 sentences2004State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 715 N.E.2d 131 . {¶ 108} In this matter, defendant was convicted of felonious assault, a second degree felony. 2004State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 715 N.E.2d 131 . {¶ 108} In this matter, defendant was convicted of felonious assault, a second degree felony. | 3 | 2001–2004 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2025Cuyahoga No. 109963, 2021-Ohio-3099, ¶ 14 . 2025Cuyahoga No. 109963, 2021-Ohio-3099, ¶ 14 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Downing
green
1 sentence2025According to Peeples, “Nowhere in [R.C.] 2929.14 is the Court permitted to require the firearm specification portion of a defendant’s sentence to be consecutive to a charge -12- in another county, while the remaining portion of the sentence is concurrent.” Id. {¶ 24} The State responds that the oral pronouncement of the sentence at the sentencing hearing and the sentence imposed in the judgment entry were consistent. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Craddock, Unpublished Decision (6-9-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2006State v. Craddock, Cuyahoga App. No. 85175, 2005-Ohio-2839 . {¶ 5} The trial court thus erred when it failed to inform defendant about the possible time period of postrelease control. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.