typographical error in Ohio

2013R.C. 2901.04(A) states that “sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.” As noted by this court in State v. Virasayachack, 138 Ohio App.3d 570 , 741 N.E.2d 943 (8th Dist.2000), “[o]rdinarily, we must presume the legislature means what it says; we cannot amend statutes to provide what we consider a more logical result.” Id. at 574 , 741 N.E.2d 943 . 7 However, Virasayachack also reasoned that: when the terms of the statute, as written, would never be applicable, and the simple substi

2013R.C. 2901.04(A) states that “sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.” As noted by this court in State v. Virasayachack, 138 Ohio App.3d 570 , 741 N.E.2d 943 (8th Dist.2000), “[o]rdinarily, we must presume the legislature means what it says; we cannot amend statutes to provide what we consider a more logical result.” Id. at 574 , 741 N.E.2d 943 . 7 However, Virasayachack also reasoned that: when the terms of the statute, as written, would never be applicable, and the simple substi

2013Id. at 574 , 741 N.E.2d 943 , citing Brim v. Rice, 20 Ohio App.2d 293 , 295–296, 253 N.E.2d 820 (1st Dist.1969).

2011It has more recently been held that “when the terms of the statute, as written, would never be applicable, and the simple substitution of one character would result in a term that would always be applicable, we must conclude that the statute contains an obviously typographical error, and we may correct the error and give effect to the obvious intent of the statute.” State v. Virasayachack (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 570, 574 , citing Brim v. Rice (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 293 . {¶31} Applying the above reasoning, this Court recently addressed this exact issue in State v. Cross, 9th Dist.

2019State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 10.

2019State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 10.

2018Id. at 689 ; State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989). {¶43} As explained under the first assignment of error, although counsel did not object to amending the indictment, the trial court was permitted to amend the indictment to correct the typographical error.

2018Id. at 689 ; State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989). {¶43} As explained under the first assignment of error, although counsel did not object to amending the indictment, the trial court was permitted to amend the indictment to correct the typographical error.

2013Montgomery No. 25144, 2013-Ohio-10 we noted that the reference to R.C. 2929.14(E) was a typographical error.

2013Montgomery No. 25144, 2013-Ohio-10 .

2013Cuyahoga No. 98496, 2013-Ohio-1031, ¶ 6 ; State v. Walker, 8th Dist.

2013No. 98496, 2013-Ohio-1031, ¶ 6 ; State v. Walker, 8th Dist.

2004Therefore, we agree with the commission's reasonable interpretation of the rule and determine that the word "of," which follows the word "batteries" in the rule, is a typographical error and that the word "or" was intended. {¶ 15} Our conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Stanton, supra. In that case, the court was faced with the interpretation of a statute that provided certain people the right to appeal a decision of a county board of revision.

2004Therefore, we agree with the commission's reasonable interpretation of the rule and determine that the word "of," which follows the word "batteries" in the rule, is a typographical error and that the word "or" was intended. {¶ 15} Our conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Stanton, supra. In that case, the court was faced with the interpretation of a statute that provided certain people the right to appeal a decision of a county board of revision.

2004Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 143 , 1997-Ohio-175 , 679 N.E.2d 1119 . 4 Lovewell, supra at 144 , citing Nationwide Mut.

2004Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 143 , 1997-Ohio-175 , 679 N.E.2d 1119 . 4 Lovewell, supra at 144 , citing Nationwide Mut.

2004Parker v. Ohio State Racing Comm. (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 575 , 582 ; Warren v. Warren Mun.

2004Parker v. Ohio State Racing Comm. (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 575 , 582 ; Warren v. Warren Mun.

2002The prosecutor argues that the reference in division (E)(1) is a typographical error and we should apply the legislature's true intention, citing Wickens v. Dunn (1942), 71 Ohio App. 177 * * *.

2001The prosecutor argues that the reference in division (E)(1) is a typographical error and we should apply the legislature's true intention, citing Wickens v. Dunn (1942), 71 Ohio App. 177 .

2026An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its judgment “in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35 . {¶75} Although set for a total of four different dates, there were three continuances of the trial: the small claim hearing on September 25, 2023 was continued to May 13, 2024 after the case was transferred to the regular civil docket to exchange discovery; the May 13, 2024 trial which was continued to September 16, 2024 by agreement of the parties because of an issue exchanging discovery due to a

2026An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its judgment “in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35 . {¶75} Although set for a total of four different dates, there were three continuances of the trial: the small claim hearing on September 25, 2023 was continued to May 13, 2024 after the case was transferred to the regular civil docket to exchange discovery; the May 13, 2024 trial which was continued to September 16, 2024 by agreement of the parties because of an issue exchanging discovery due to a

2025This Court addressed the issue of clerical errors and their impact on the validity of search warrants in State v. Newman, 2017-Ohio-4047 (5th Dist.): “However, it is well-established that inadvertent clerical errors, unless they cause prejudice to the defendant, will not invalidate an otherwise valid search warrant.” Id. at ¶ 22.

2024The judge stressed that this is true even where the defendant “ ‘agreed to a sentencing range or sentencing cap, as opposed to a specific sentence.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Grant, 2018-Ohio-1759, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.). {¶ 27} Relying on Porterfield, as the Ninth District did in Shepherd, Judge Gallagher remarked that: When “a defendant stipulates that a particular sentence is justified, the sentencing judge no longer needs to independently justify the sentence.” State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 , 2005-Ohio-3095 , 829 N.E.2d 690 , 1 The reference to R.C. 2929.11(B)(1)(b) is a typographical err

2024The judge stressed that this is true even where the defendant “ ‘agreed to a sentencing range or sentencing cap, as opposed to a specific sentence.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Grant, 2018-Ohio-1759, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.). {¶ 27} Relying on Porterfield, as the Ninth District did in Shepherd, Judge Gallagher remarked that: When “a defendant stipulates that a particular sentence is justified, the sentencing judge no longer needs to independently justify the sentence.” State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 , 2005-Ohio-3095 , 829 N.E.2d 690 , 1 The reference to R.C. 2929.11(B)(1)(b) is a typographical err