[Cite as State v. Harris, 2018-Ohio-2850.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-170266
C-170267
Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NOS. B-1403840
B-1501428
vs. :
DRAKKAR HARRIS, : O P I N I O N.
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed and Causes Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 20, 2018
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Timothy J. McKenna, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CUNNINGHAM, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, defendant-appellant Drakkar Harris appeals
his sentences in the cases numbered B-1403840 and B-1501428. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm the judgments in both cases, but we remand the causes for the trial court
to issue nunc pro tunc sentencing entries to reflect the sentences the court actually
imposed at the sentencing hearing.
Background Facts and Procedure
{¶2} Harris was charged with the 2014 robberies of two individuals in B-
1403840. Harris pleaded guilty to those charges on February 6, 2015, and he remained
released on bond pending sentencing. While out on bond, Harris committed several other
offenses including the aggravated robberies and the felonious assault that were charged in
B-1501428.
{¶3} When Harris appeared on May 25, 2017, for sentencing in B-1403840, he
also entered guilty pleas in B-1501428. In exchange, the state agreed, among other things,
to reduce some of the charges, to dismiss others, and to recommend a “global” multi-case
25-year sentence of imprisonment to be comprised of an aggregate 14-year sentence in B-
1403840 and B-1501428, to be served consecutively to an 11-year sentence that had been
imposed by another sentencing court in the case numbered B-1502209.
{¶4} The trial court accepted Harris’ plea in B-1501428 to four counts of
robbery, three accompanied by a one-year firearm specification, and one count of
felonious assault with a one-year firearm specification. The court then proceeded directly
to sentencing in both B-1403840 and B-1501428.
{¶5} At the sentencing hearing, the court announced that it was imposing
concurrent prison terms for the offenses committed in B-1403840, for a total of three
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
years, and consecutive prison terms for the offenses committed in B-1501428, for a total of
14 years. The court further stated that the B-1403840 and B-1501428 sentences were to
be served at the same time, but that those sentences were to be served consecutively to the
11-year sentence previously imposed in B-1502209, for a global sentence of “25 years” in
prison, as requested by the state. The court also made findings in support of the
consecutive sentences.
{¶6} The sentencing entries the court journalized were consistent with the oral
pronouncement and provided that the sentences imposed in each case were to be served
consecutively to the sentence imposed in B-1502209. But the court did not specify that
the sentences in B-1403840 and B-1501428 were to be served concurrently and that the
aggregate 14-year sentence for the two cases was to be served consecutively to the
sentence imposed in B-1502209. Harris now appeals, raising two assignments of error.
Analysis
{¶7} In his first assignment of error, Harris argues that the trial court erred by
ordering that the prison terms imposed in B-1501428 be served consecutively to each
other. The court sentenced Harris in B-1501428 for four different robberies and a
felonious assault that occurred at the same time as one of the robberies.
{¶8} In Ohio, there is a statutory presumption in favor of concurrent sentences
for most felony offenses. See R.C. 2929.41(A). When the trial court imposes consecutive
sentences, it must make the consecutive-sentences findings set out in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),
and those findings must be made at the sentencing hearing and incorporated into the
sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.2d 659,
syllabus.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶9} This court may modify or vacate a felony sentence under R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) only if we clearly and convincingly find that either (1) the record does not
support the mandatory sentencing findings, if any, or (2) the sentence is otherwise
contrary to law. State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.).
{¶10} Harris argues that the record does not support the trial court’s findings
under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that consecutive terms in B-1501428 were “necessary to protect
the public from future crime” and “were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
offender’s conduct.”
{¶11} The record shows, however, that Harris was out on bond when the B-
1501428 offenses took place, and his conduct demonstrated an escalating path of violence.
Harris displayed a firearm during the January 23, 2015 and January 27, 2015 robberies,
and he used that firearm on February 14, 2015, during a robbery and felonious assault,
firing shots as his victim ran away. During an additional robbery on February 13, 2015,
Harris severely beat his elderly victim. Further, Harris, who was 21 years old at
sentencing, had a long record of juvenile adjudications and “over 20 pages worth of
infractions” while housed inside the Hamilton County Justice Center. These facts
provided ample support for the trial court’s findings that consecutive prison terms were
necessary to protect the public from future crime and were not disproportionate to the
seriousness of Harris’ conduct.
{¶12} Thus, Harris has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred by
imposing consecutive prison terms in B-1501428, see White, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d
629, at ¶ 11, and we overrule the first assignment of error.
{¶13} Harris argues in his second assignment of error that the sentencing entries
do not reflect the sentences the trial court imposed at the sentencing hearing. He argues
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
that the court orally imposed the state’s requested global sentence of 25 years in prison,
but a clerical error in the sentencing entries indicated a 28-year global sentence. The state
joins in Harris’ argument that the court orally imposed a 25-year global sentence that is
not reflected in the entries.
{¶14} Our review of the record, including the transcript of the proceedings,
clearly demonstrates that the sentencing entries do not reflect the sentences the trial court
announced at the joint-sentencing hearing. The court stated that the sentences imposed
would result in the “25 years” in prison recommended by the state, which comprised of
running the B-1501428 and B-1403840 sentences concurrently and the aggregate 14-year
sentence for those two cases consecutively to the 11-year sentence in B-1502209. If both
the B-1403840 and B-1501428 sentences are independently served consecutively to B-
1502209, as reflected in the sentencing entries, Harris would serve a 28-year global
sentence. Accordingly, we sustain the second assignment of error on this basis.
{¶15} Harris’ challenge, however, involves a defect in his sentencing entries that
can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry. See State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-
Ohio-1111, 967 N.E.2d 718, ¶ 13. “Errors subject to correction by the court include a
clerical error, mistake, or omission that is mechanical in nature and apparent on the
record and does not involve a legal decision or judgment.” State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d
303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, ¶ 18. A nunc pro tunc entry is appropriately used
to correct a sentencing entry to reflect a sentence the trial court actually imposed upon a
defendant at a sentencing hearing. See Qualls at ¶ 13; Crim.R. 36.
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Conclusion
{¶16} We affirm the trial court’s judgments in the cases numbered B-1403840
and B-1501428, but we remand the causes for the court to issue nunc pro tunc sentencing
entries that include the additional statement that the three-year sentence imposed in B-
1403840 and the 14-year sentence imposed in B-1501428 are to be served concurrently,
and that the aggregate 14-year sentence for those two cases shall be served consecutively
to the 11-year sentence imposed in B-1502209.
Judgment accordingly.
MYERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
6
State v. Harris
Combined Opinion