State v. Pagan

2014 Ohio 1510

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 10, 2014
• Docket: 99935
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Pagan, 2014-Ohio-1510.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99935

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

JOSE PAGAN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-11-546295-A

BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and McCormack, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 10, 2014 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Mary Elaine Hall 645 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue, East Cleveland, Ohio 44114

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: Adam M. Chaloupka James Hofelich Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jose Pagan (“Pagan”), filed the instant appeal

challenging the new sentence he received on remand following a successful appeal of his

original sentence. This court remanded the case for resentencing because Pagan’s

convictions were allied offenses that should have merged. On remand, the trial court

sentenced Pagan to three years on the underlying offense plus three years on a firearm

specification to be served consecutively for an aggregate six-year sentence. However, in

contrast to the six-year sentence pronounced at the resentencing hearing, the trial court’s

journal entry imposed a 13-year sentence, which was the original sentence before this

court remanded for merger of allied offenses.

{¶2} While this appeal was pending, this court sua sponte ordered the trial court to

correct the noted inconsistency and, pursuant to our order, the trial court entered a

corrective nunc pro tunc journal entry. Courts possess inherent authority to correct errors

in judgment entries in order for the record to speak the truth. State ex rel. Fogle v.

Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 163-164, 656 N.E.2d 1288 (1995); see Crim.R. 36. Thus, the

purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry is to make the record reflect the truth. State v. Zawitz,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99179, 2013-Ohio-2540, ¶ 13, citing Reinbolt v. Reinbolt, 112

Ohio St. 526, 147 N.E. 808 (1925). {¶3} This court subsequently heard oral arguments, and the parties agreed that

the corrective journal entry remedied the issue raised in Pagan’s sole assignment of error.

This appeal is now moot.

{¶4} Appeal dismissed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court to carry this

judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of

the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR