State v. Greene

2026 Ohio 574

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 25-COA-018
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Greene, 2026-Ohio-574.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 25-COA-018

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 24-CRI-314 TAESHAWN GREENE Judgment: Sentence Vacated and Remanded Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: February 19, 2026

BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: JAMES B. REESE III, for Plaintiff-Appellee; BRIAN A. SMITH, for Defendant-Appellant.

King, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Taeshawn Greene, appeals his May 19, 2025

sentence from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee is the

State of Ohio. We vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} On December 19, 2024, the Ashland County Grand Jury indicted Greene

on one count of breaking and entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13 (Count 1), one count

of attempted grand theft in violation of R.C. 2923.02 (Count 2), one count of possessing

criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24 (Count 3), and one count of receiving stolen

property in violation of R.C. 2913.51 (Count 4). {¶ 3} On April 4, 2025, Greene pled guilty to Counts 1, 3, and 4; Count 2 was

dismissed. By judgment entry filed May 19, 2025, the trial court sentenced Greene to

ninety days in jail and two years of community control and imposed $100 fines on each

count.

{¶ 4} Greene filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:

I

{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCING ENTRY WAS IN ERROR DUE TO

THE CLERICAL ERRORS OMITTING THE DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING STOLEN

PROPERTY AS 'COUNT FOUR,' AND IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE ON 'COUNTS ONE,

TWO AND THREE,' RATHER THAN 'COUNTS ONE, THREE, AND FOUR,' TO WHICH

APPELLANT PLEADED GUILTY."

{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Greene claims the trial court erred in its

sentencing entry. We agree.

{¶ 7} Greene argues the trial court's judgment entry on sentencing contains

typographical errors: 1) it fails to identify receiving stolen property as Count 4; and 2) it

refers to the pled counts as Counts 1, 2, and 3 instead of Counts 1, 3, and 4. He seeks

a remand to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the errors.

{¶ 8} As noted by this court in State v. Smith, 2025-Ohio-5127, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.):

A nunc pro tunc order may be used to "'correct clerical mistakes in

judgments or orders arising from oversight or omissions.'" State v. Gould,

2025-Ohio-2158, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Thompson, 2024-Ohio- 991, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.). "A 'clerical mistake' refers to a mistake or omission,

mechanical in nature and apparent on the record, which does not involve a

legal decision or judgment." Id.

{¶ 9} The State concedes that the judgment entry on sentencing contains

typographical errors and is not opposed to Greene's request for a nunc pro tunc entry to

correct the errors.

{¶ 10} Upon review, we find the trial court's judgment entry on sentencing does not

correctly reflect the counts on which Greene was sentenced; typographical errors in the

judgment entry on sentencing need rectified. April 4, 2025 T. at 15-16; May 19, 2025 T.

at 3. The matter is remanded to the trial court to correct the judgment entry on sentencing.

This limited remand does not affect Greene's convictions or the substantive terms of his

sentence but merely corrects the judgment entry to conform to what occurred in open

court at the sentencing hearing.

{¶ 11} The sole assignment of error is granted. {¶ 12} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the sentence of the

Ashland County Court of Common Pleas is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for

the issuance of a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to correct the complained of errors.

{¶ 13} Costs to Appellee.

By: King, P.J.

Hoffman, J. and

Gormley, J. concur.