State v. Holling

2025 Ohio 385

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 2024CA00048
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Holling, 2025-Ohio-385.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- : : JAMES CHARLES HOLLING, : Case No. 2024CA00048 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2020 CR 0104

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 6, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KYLE L. STONE D. COLEMAN BOND Prosecuting Attorney 116 Cleveland Ave. NW Stark County, Ohio Suite 600 Canton, Ohio 44702 By: VICKI L. DESANTIS Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appellate Division 110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413 Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 2

Baldwin, P.J.

{¶1} The appellant, James Charles Holling, appeals the judgment of the trial

court revoking the appellant’s community control sanctions and sentence. The appellee

is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} On February 21, 2020, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted the appellant

with one count of Aggravated Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A).

{¶3} On April 13, 2020, the appellant entered into a plea of guilty to one count of

Aggravated Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A). The trial court

sentenced the appellant to three years of community control sanctions with the Stark

County Probation Department. He was to abide by the terms and conditions of the

community control sanctions and pay court costs and monitoring fees. He received three

notices throughout 2020 for failure to pay fees and costs. The appellant never filed an

appeal from his conviction and sentence.

{¶4} On December 22, 2021, the appellant filed a motion to modify his

community control sanctions to allow for his use of medical marijuana for a claimed

medical condition.

{¶5} On January 25, 2022, the appellant’s probation officer filed a motion to

revoke or modify the appellant’s community control sanctions for multiple violations.

{¶6} In February of 2022, the appellant moved to have his probable cause

hearing continued three times. Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 3

{¶7} On February 28, 2022, the trial court determined the appellant waived his

probable cause hearing. The appellant stipulated to the violations. The trial court modified

his community control sanctions and ordered him to Oriana House for evaluations.

{¶8} On March 18, 2022, the trial court modified the appellant’s treatment

location to a halfway house. Three days later, the trial court denied the probation officer’s

motion to revoke.

{¶9} On April 26, 2022, the probation officer filed a motion to revoke or modify

the prior order as the appellant has absconded from the treatment program. The trial court

issued an arrest warrant.

{¶10} On April 29, 2022, the sheriff arrested the appellant.

{¶11} On May 9, 2022, the trial court held a probable cause hearing. At the

hearing, the appellant admitted to violating the terms of his community control sanctions.

The trial court, again, denied the motion to revoke and referred the appellant to the Stark

Regional Community Correction Center upon bed availability.

{¶12} On March 28, 2023, the trial court ordered the appellant to serve an

additional year of community control sanctions for his violations. The judgment entry

states:

Defendant, James Charles Holling, was granted 3 Years Intensive

Supervision on 4/13/2020, after conviction for Aggravated Possession of

Drugs F3. Now comes Probation Officer TIM. J. MURRAY stating Probation

should be extended an additional 1 Year(s) for the following reasons(s)(sic):

The Defendant violated condition 17b of his probation by failing to abstain

from all alcoholic beverages and drugs during his probation term. Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 4

The Defendant has failed to maintain sobriety.

{¶13} On August 11, 2023, the appellant filed a motion to terminate his community

control sanctions and requested to be allowed to use medical marijuana.

{¶14} On August 15, 2023, the trial court denied the motion. However, in its

judgment entry the trial court stated it would allow the appellant to forward any medical

marijuana information to the court for a final determination. The appellant did not appeal

this order, nor did he provide medical marijuana information to the trial court.

{¶15} On December 20, 2023, the appellant’s probation officer filed another

motion to revoke or modify a former order for the appellant’s failure to report as instructed,

absconding from supervision, failing to maintain sobriety, failing to complete community

service, and failing to obtain full-time employment. The trial court issued a bench warrant.

{¶16} On February 13, 2024, the appellant was arrested.

{¶17} On March 4, 2024, the trial court held a probable cause hearing.

{¶18} On March 11, 2024, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing.

{¶19} On March 18, 2024, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-four

months in prison, giving the appellant credit for 264 days.

{¶20} On April 11, 2024, the appellant appealed the March 18, 2024, judgment

entry.

{¶21} The appellant herein raised the following two assignments of error:

{¶22} “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT ENTRY CONTAINS A CLERICAL

ERROR, AND THIS MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT TO

CORRECT THAT CLERICAL ERROR PURSUANT TO CRIM.R. 36.” Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 5

{¶23} “II. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION

10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

I.

{¶24} In the appellant’s first assignment of error, the appellant argues we should

remand the case for the trial court to correct a clerical error. We disagree.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶25} Crim.R. 52(A) defines harmless error as “[a]ny defect, irregularity, or

variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” We will conduct a

harmless error analysis on whether or not the clerical error was harmless.

ANALYSIS

{¶26} Crim.R. 36 states, “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, order, or other parts of

the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission, may be corrected

by the court at any time.”

{¶27} “A clerical error or mistake refers to ‘ “a mistake or omission, mechanical in

nature and apparent on the record, which does not involve a legal decision or judgment.”

’ ” State v. Miller, 2010-Ohio-5705, ¶15, quoting State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 2006-

Ohio-5795, ¶19, quoting State v. Brown, 2000-Ohio-1660 (3rd Dist.).

{¶28} “[A} trial court lacks the authority to reconsider its own valid, final judgment

in a criminal case, with two exceptions: (1) when a void sentence has been imposed and

(2) when the judgment contains a clerical error.” Miller at ¶14; Crim.R. 36. In other words,

the trial court has the authority to correct clerical errors in its own judgment entries. Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 6

{¶29} In the case sub judice, the trial court issued a judgment entry stating that

the appellant stipulated to the probation violation and waived an evidentiary hearing. The

record is clear that the trial court held the evidentiary hearing, and the appellant did not

stipulate to violations. In the evidentiary hearing, the trial court listed the appellant’s

violations, the evidence the trial court relied on, and the reason for revoking his community

control sanctions.

{¶30} Clerical errors do not involve a legal decision or judgment; as such, they are

harmless and not for this court to reverse. Assuming, arguendo, these errors do not

constitute clerical errors, the appellant has failed to show how the error affected his

substantial rights or how he has been prejudiced by this error. The appellant does not

challenge the manifest weight nor the sufficiency of the evidence leading to the trial court’s

finding that he violated his community control sanctions. Therefore, we find the trial court

stating in its judgment entry that the appellant stipulated to violations and waived an

evidentiary hearing are harmless.

{¶31} Accordingly, the appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.

II.

{¶32} In the appellant’s second assignment of error, the appellant argues that his

trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing the trial court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction to revoke the appellant’s community control sanctions. We disagree.

{¶33} Our standard of review for ineffective assistance claims is set forth in

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Ohio

adopted this standard in the case of State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989). These Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 7

cases require a two-pronged analysis in reviewing a claim for ineffective assistance of

counsel. First, we must determine whether counsel’s assistance was ineffective, i.e.,

whether counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable

representation and was violative of any of his or her essential duties to the client. If we

find ineffective assistance of counsel, we must then determine whether or not the defense

was actually prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness such that the reliability of the

outcome of the trial is suspect. This requires a showing there is a reasonable probability

that but for counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome of trial would have been different.

Id.

{¶34} Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that all decisions fall within

the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie, 1998-Ohio-343.

{¶35} The appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

appeal the March 28, 2023, judgment entry extending the appellant’s community control

and for failing to challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction at an evidentiary hearing in March

of 2024.

{¶36} First, we address our jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s argument regarding

trial counsel’s failure to appeal the March 28, 2023, judgment entry extending the

appellant’s community control. The appellant did not file a timely appeal from the March

28, 2023, judgment entry, and in the case sub judice has not filed a request for delayed

appeal from that judgment entry. The appellant did not include the March 28, 2023,

judgment entry in the notice of appeal. App.R. 3(D) states, “[t]he notice of appeal … shall

designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealed from.” “An appellate court is Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 8

‘without jurisdiction to review a judgment or order that is not designated in the appellant’s

notice of appeal.’ ” State v. Dixon, 2004-Ohio-1593 (9th), ¶7; quoting Slone v. Bd. of

Embalmers & Funeral Directors of Ohio, 123 Ohio App.3d 545 (8th Dist. 1997).

Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to address the argument of the trial counsel’s

failure to challenge the March 28, 2023, judgment entry.

{¶37} Next, the appellant also argues that the trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to argue the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appellant argues this

case is similar to State v. Carpenter, 2009-Ohio-4759 (5th Dist.). In Carpenter, the trial

court extended the defendant’s community control without notice or a hearing. After the

initial period of community control, but before the extended period expired, the trial court

revoked his probation and sentenced the appellant to prison. On appeal, the defendant

argued that the trial court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to convict the appellant

since the trial court extended his community control without notice or a hearing. This Court

found that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction because the appellant failed to

appeal the judgment entry extending community control. Id.

{¶38} On March 28, 2023, the trial court extended the appellant’s community

control sanctions for one year without notice or a hearing. The appellant’s community

control sanctions originally would have terminated in April of 2023. The appellant did not

challenge the trial court’s extension, nor did he appeal from the trial court’s judgment entry

extending the appellant’s community control. Just as in State v. Carpenter, because the

March 28, 2023, judgment entry still has not been challenged, the trial court has subject

matter jurisdiction to revoke the appellant’s community control sanctions and sentenced Stark County, Case No. 2024CA00048 9

the appellant to prison. Therefore, the appellant has not shown how trial counsel’s

performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation.

{¶39} Accordingly, the appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.

CONCLUSION

{¶40} Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Stark County Court of Common

Pleas is, hereby, affirmed.

By: Baldwin, P.J.

Hoffman, J. and

King, J. concur.