State v. Newsome

2025 Ohio 3102

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: WD-24-074
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Newsome, 2025-Ohio-3102.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-24-074

Appellee Trial Court No. 2024CR236

v.

Shanah Newsome, Sr. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: August 29, 2025

*****

Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and, David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Jeffrey Nunnari, for appellant.

***** DUHART, J.

{¶ 1} This case is before the court on appeal from the October 9, 2024

judgment of the Wood County Common Pleas Court. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for correction of a clerical

error in the judgment entry via a nunc pro tunc entry. Assignment of Error

{¶ 2} Appellant, Shanah Newsome, Sr., asserts one assignment of error:

Appellant’s sentence is contrary to law.

Background

{¶ 3} On June 6, 2024, Newsome was indicted on two counts: Count One,

improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation or school safety zone, in

violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1) and (C), a felony of the second degree; and

Count Two, having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C.

2923.13(A)(2) and (B), a felony of the third degree. These charges stemmed from

allegations that Newsome, who had been previously convicted of a felony offense

of violence, did acquire and discharge a firearm at the Baymont Motel in

Northwood, Ohio.

{¶ 4} At an arraignment held July 16, 2024, Newsome pled not guilty to

both counts. Newsome then entered into several stipulations: he was the person in

the surveillance video from the motel; he had prior convictions of aggravated

assault and domestic violence, both felonies of the fourth degree; and his previous

convictions prohibited him from acquiring, carrying, or using a firearm when this

incident occurred.

{¶ 5} Prior to the commencement of trial, the State moved to dismiss Count

One, improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation or school safety zone.

Thereafter, a two-day jury trial was held, on October 2-3, 2024, after which

Newsome was found guilty of having weapons while under disability.

2. {¶ 6} The trial court immediately proceeded to sentencing and imposed a

three-year prison term and apprised Newsome that “upon [his] release [he] could

be subject to up to two years of post[-]release control at the discretion of the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.” However, the trial court’s

judgment entry set forth that Newsome “WILL be subject to . . . [a] mandatory

period of supervision” as a form of post-release control.

{¶ 7} Newsome timely appealed.

Law and Analysis

{¶ 8} Newsome does not appeal his conviction, but instead he appeals his

sentence, as he notes that the statement from the trial court differs from the

judgment entry. He believes this constitutes a reversal of judgment of his sentence

and therefore he requests to be resentenced by the trial court. The State concedes

that there is a clerical error within the judgment entry that does not reflect what

was presented orally at the sentencing hearing. The State contends that this court

should affirm the judgment of sentence and remand the case with an order for a

nunc pro tunc entry to be filed, as this court has done in similar cases, that would

accurately reflect what was said at Newsome’s sentencing hearing.

{¶ 9} Time and time again, this issue has been brought up on appeal, and

courts have noted that, “[i]f proper notification is given during the sentencing

hearing, but the sentencing entry improperly imposes post-release control, a trial

court is authorized to correct the error or omission with a nunc pro tunc entry.”

3. State v. Perry, 2021-Ohio-3525, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). See also State v. Bucey, 2019-

Ohio-4874, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.); State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 2011-Ohio-229, ¶ 14-

15; State v. Qualls, 2012-Ohio-1111, ¶ 30. Nunc pro tunc entries are used to

correct clerical mistakes. State v. Thompson, 2024-Ohio-991, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.).

Clerical mistakes include simple typographical errors that may arise from

oversight or omission, are mechanical in nature and are apparent on the record. Id.

Clerical mistakes do not involve legal decisions or judgment. Id.

{¶ 10} Nunc pro tunc entries cannot be used to resentence a defendant or to

impose a sanction on a defendant that was not imposed as part of the sentencing

hearing. State v. Cox, 2025-Ohio-307, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.). The general purpose for a

nunc pro tunc entry is to correct a judgment entry so it accurately reflects the

record of a specific hearing. Id. See also State v. Aarons, 2021-Ohio-3671, ¶ 26

(8th Dist.); State v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-3099, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.); State v. Clark, 2024-

Ohio-5717, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.). Pursuant to Crim.R. 36, trial courts have the

discretion to make corrections to clerical errors at any time.

{¶ 11} Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we find the

inconsistency between the sentencing hearing and the judgment entry is an error

that is merely clerical and can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry. As such, this

matter will be remanded to the trial court for the issuance of a nunc pro tunc entry

conforming the judgment entry with the sentence that was imposed upon

Newsome at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we find Newsome’s assignment

of error well-taken, in part.

4. Conclusion

{¶ 12} The judgment of the Wood County Common Pleas Court is

affirmed, in part, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited

purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc entry that accurately reflects the statements

made at the sentencing hearing.

{¶ 13} Pursuant to App.R. 24, Shanah Newsome, Sr. and the State are

hereby ordered to split the costs incurred on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, P.J. CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

5.