Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caprita v. Capritagreen2 sentences2023Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97, 100 (1996), citing Londrico v. Knowlton, 88 Ohio App.3d 282 (9th Dist.1993). {¶ 26} “The function of an entry nunc pro tunc is the correction of judicial records insofar as they fail to record, or improperly record, a judgment rendered by the court, as distinguished from the correction of an error in the judgment itself, or in the failure to render the judgment.” Caprita v. Caprita, 145 Ohio St. 5, 7 (1945). 2014Id. at ¶ 16, citing Caprita v. Caprita, 145 Ohio St. 5 , 60 N.E.2d 483 (1945), ¶ 2 of syllabus (“The function of an entry nunc pro tunc is the correction of judicial records insofar as they fail to record, or improperly record, a judgment rendered by the court, as distinguished from the correction of an error in the judgment itself, or in the failure to render the judgment.”). | 1 | 4 |
State ex rel. Litty v. Leskovyanskygreen1 sentence2023Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97, 100 (1996), citing Londrico v. Knowlton, 88 Ohio App.3d 282 (9th Dist.1993). {¶ 26} “The function of an entry nunc pro tunc is the correction of judicial records insofar as they fail to record, or improperly record, a judgment rendered by the court, as distinguished from the correction of an error in the judgment itself, or in the failure to render the judgment.” Caprita v. Caprita, 145 Ohio St. 5, 7 (1945). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quallsgreen1 sentence2014See also State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 , 2012-Ohio- 1111, 967 N.E.2d 718 , ¶ 24 (where court imposed post-release control at sentencing hearing but failed to record this part of the sentence in the judgment, the original sentencing entry can be corrected through a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect what actually took place at the sentencing hearing). {¶14} Here, the trial court at the sentencing hearing followed our orders on remand by having the state elect between attempted murder and felonious assault. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Londrico v. Delores C. Knowlton, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Litty v. Leskovyansky, 77 Ohio St.3d 97, 100 (1996), citing Londrico v. Knowlton, 88 Ohio App.3d 282 (9th Dist.1993). {¶ 26} “The function of an entry nunc pro tunc is the correction of judicial records insofar as they fail to record, or improperly record, a judgment rendered by the court, as distinguished from the correction of an error in the judgment itself, or in the failure to render the judgment.” Caprita v. Caprita, 145 Ohio St. 5, 7 (1945). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. McMillen, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2003)
neutral
1 sentence2011No. 21425, 2003-Ohio-5786, at ¶36 . {¶9} The trial court committed reversible error in this case by sentencing Fields outside his presence. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hernandez v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2009Further, in Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , 2006- Ohio-126, 844 N.E.2d 301, ¶ 32 , this court held that resentencing to impose postrelease control is not an option once the defendant had completed his prison term. {¶ 37} Again, the trial court in the first case did not resentence Harrison; it instead allowed Harrison to withdraw his guilty plea. 2009Further, in Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , 2006- Ohio-126, 844 N.E.2d 301, ¶ 32 , this court held that resentencing to impose postrelease control is not an option once the defendant had completed his prison term. {¶ 37} Again, the trial court in the first case did not resentence Harrison; it instead allowed Harrison to withdraw his guilty plea. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Bezak
red
2 sentences2009Before Harrison completed his incarceration, the state could have sought a correction of that error, and the trial court could have resentenced Harrison to include mandatory postrelease control, but that power ended once Harrison was released: “[I]n cases in which a defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, an offense for which postrelease control is required but not properly 8 January Term, 2009 included in the sentence, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have postrelease control imposed on the defendant unless the defendant has completed his 2009Before Harrison completed his incarceration, the state could have sought a correction of that error, and the trial court could have resentenced Harrison to include mandatory postrelease control, but that power ended once Harrison was released: “[I]n cases in which a defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, an offense for which postrelease control is required but not properly 8 January Term, 2009 included in the sentence, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have postrelease control imposed on the defendant unless the defendant has completed his | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Simpkins
green
2 sentences2009Before Harrison completed his incarceration, the state could have sought a correction of that error, and the trial court could have resentenced Harrison to include mandatory postrelease control, but that power ended once Harrison was released: “[I]n cases in which a defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, an offense for which postrelease control is required but not properly 8 January Term, 2009 included in the sentence, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have postrelease control imposed on the defendant unless the defendant has completed his 2009Before Harrison completed his incarceration, the state could have sought a correction of that error, and the trial court could have resentenced Harrison to include mandatory postrelease control, but that power ended once Harrison was released: “[I]n cases in which a defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, an offense for which postrelease control is required but not properly included in the sentence, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have postrelease control imposed on the defendant unless the defendant has completed his sentence.” (Emphasis | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Vance v. Davis
green
1 sentence1924The court follows the decision of Vance v. Davis, 107 OS. 577 , and declines.to follow, the ease of Ricard v. Porter, 15 CC., NS. 397; 34 OGC. 530. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.