State v. Lester

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Lester

934 N.E.2d 353, 126 Ohio St. 3d 1579

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 2010

Docket2010-1372

StatusPublished

This text of 934 N.E.2d 353 (State v. Lester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lester, 934 N.E.2d 353, 126 Ohio St. 3d 1579 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Auglaize App. No. 2-10-20. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed July 12, 2010:

“Is a nunc pro tunc judgment filed for the purpose of correcting a clerical omission in a prior sentencing judgment by adding “means of conviction” language, which was readily apparent throughout the record and to the parties but not originally included as required by Crim.R. 32(C), a final order subject to appeal?”

O’Connor, J., would answer the question on the authority of State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is State v. Lamkin, Lucas App. No. L-09-1270, 2010-Ohio-1971.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2010-1007, State v. Lester, Auglaize App. No. 2-10-20.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI