[Cite as State v. Tate, 2013-Ohio-276.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98820
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
SABINO TATE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-455037 and CR-462033
BEFORE: Jones, J., Stewart, A.J., and Blackmon, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 31, 2013
FOR APPELLANT
Sabino Tate
Inmate #481-373
Noble Correctional Institution
15708 McConnelsville Road
Caldwell, Ohio 43724
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: T. Allan Regas
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:
{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to
App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the trial court records and briefs of counsel.
{¶2} Defendant-appellant, Sabino Tate appeals, pro se, the trial court’s denial of
his motion to correct void journal entry. We affirm.
{¶3} In 2005, Tate pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in Case No.
CR-462033 and felonious assault in Case No. CR-455037. He was sentenced by the
court to an aggregate sentence of 15 years in prison.
{¶4} On October 28, 2010, the trial court resentenced Tate because it had failed to
properly advise him of his postrelease control obligations at his original sentencing
hearing. The trial court issued a judgment entry in each of the two cases, sentencing
Tate to the same 15 years in prison and outlining postrelease control.
{¶5} Over the next year, Tate filed various appeals challenging his sentence; those
appeals were dismissed by this court. See State v. Tate, 8th Dist. No. 96009; State v.
Tate, 8th Dist. No. 96268; State v. Tate, 8th Dist. No. 97095; State v. Tate, 8th Dist. No.
98070; State v. Tate, 8th Dist. No. 98278.
{¶6} In 2012, Tate filed a pro se motion to correct void journal entry in both cases,
which the trial court denied. It is from these orders that Tate appeals, raising the
following assignment of error for our review:
Trial court failed to correct journal entry of conviction so that it could be a
final appealable order.
{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Tate contends that his convictions and
sentence are void because the journal entries of conviction did not contain the fact of
conviction, i.e., it did not state that the trial court actually found Tate guilty. As such,
Tate argues, the trial court failed to issue journal entries that constituted final, appealable
orders.
{¶8} Crim.R. 32(C) specifies that a judgment entry of conviction must contain “the
plea, the verdict, or findings, upon which each conviction is based, and the sentence.”
In State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, the Ohio
Supreme Court held that a judgment entry of conviction must contain the Crim.R. 32(C)
elements to be final and subject to appeal: “A judgment of conviction is a final
appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury
verdict, or the finding of the court upon which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence;
(3) the signature of the judge; and (4) entry on the journal by the clerk of court.” Id. at
the syllabus.
{¶9} The Ohio Supreme Court recently revisited Baker in State v. Lester, 130 Ohio
St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, and clarified the necessary components of
the manner of conviction. In Lester, the Court held, in part, that
[a] judgment of conviction is a final order subject to appeal under R.C.
2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the sentence,
(3) the judge’s signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon
the journal by the clerk. (Crim.R. 32(C), explained; State v. Baker, * * * ,
modified.)
Lester, at paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶10} The purpose of Crim.R. 32(C) is to ensure that a defendant is on notice
concerning when a final judgment has been entered and the time for filing an appeal has
begun to run. Id. at ¶ 10, citing State v. Tripodo, 50 Ohio St.2d 124, 127, 363 N.E.2d
719 (1977).
{¶11} The journal entries of conviction in this case meet all the substantive
requirements. The journal entries contain (1) the fact of conviction, i.e., that Tate
pleaded guilty, (2) the sentence the court imposed, (3) the judge’s signature, and (4) the
clerk of court’s time stamp.
{¶12} Therefore, the October 2010 sentencing journal entries were final,
appealable orders. Having found no jurisdictional deficiencies in the judgment entry of
conviction, the trial court correctly denied Tate’s motions.
{¶13} We overrule the sole assignment of error.
{¶14} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing 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.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR
State v. Tate
Combined Opinion