[Cite as In re B.R., 2023-Ohio-1642.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: B.R., A MINOR CHILD. : APPEAL NOS. C-220309
C-220310
: C-220311
: TRIAL NOS. 18-3608Z
18-3609Z
: 18-3610Z
: O P I N I O N.
Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 17, 2023
Office of the Ohio Public Defender Lauren Hammersmith, Assistant State Public
Defender, for Defendant-Appellant,
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alex Scott Halvin,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
KINSLEY, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant B.R. appeals from the juvenile court’s order
denying his motion to vacate his classification as a Public Registry Qualified Juvenile
Offender Registrant (“PRQJOR”).
{¶2} In his sole assignment of error, B.R. argues the juvenile court erred in
denying his motion, because it classified B.R. as a PRQJOR pursuant to R.C. 2152.86,
which the Ohio Supreme Court has held is unconstitutional. Following our review of
the record, we hold the juvenile court’s classification of B.R. as a PRQJOR was a
clerical error, which the juvenile court corrected nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, the
judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural Background
{¶3} On July 23, 2018, four complaints were filed in the Hamilton County
Juvenile Court alleging that then 17-year-old B.R. was delinquent for committing three
counts of gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05, felonies of the third degree if
committed by an adult. B.R. entered admissions and was adjudicated delinquent of
all offenses on December 18, 2018.
{¶4} The juvenile court held a hearing on disposition and classification on
January 31, 2019. At the hearing, the juvenile court committed B.R. to the legal
custody of the Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) for a minimum period of six
months and a maximum period not to exceed B.R.’s attainment of 21 years.
Additionally, the juvenile court found that B.R. was a serious youthful offender but
stayed the adult portion of this dispositional sentence pending B.R.’s successful
completion of the juvenile dispositions imposed. The juvenile court also concluded,
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
“the most appropriate classification would be the Tier III with the public registration
qualified juvenile registrant subject to community notifications.”
{¶5} Following the hearing, the juvenile court classified B.R. as a Tier III
public registrant with community notification in its January 31, 2019 judicial entry,
and the accompanying “Explanation of Duties to Register as a Juvenile Offender
Registrant or Child Victim Offender” form listed B.R. as a PRQJOR.
{¶6} But on February 4, 2019, the juvenile court amended its January 31,
2019 judicial entry by setting aside the January 31, 2019 juvenile-sex-offender
registration classification. The juvenile court did not specify why the January 31, 2019
classification was set aside.
{¶7} On April 11, 2019, B.R. returned to the juvenile court for another
hearing. In its subsequent judicial entry, the juvenile court authorized DYS to transfer
B.R. to the Paint Creek Youth Center and classified B.R. as a Tier III public registrant
with community notification. But B.R. was against listed as a PRQJOR in the
accompanying “Explanation of Duties” form.
{¶8} B.R. moved to vacate his classification as a PRQJOR. In its June 2, 2022
order, the juvenile court denied B.R.’s motion and held it only classified B.R. as a Tier
III sex offender with community notification. The juvenile court noted the PRQJOR
classification on the “Explanation of Duties” form was a clerical error, which it
corrected nunc pro tunc. B.R. now appeals from this order.
PRQJOR Classification
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, B.R. argues the juvenile court erred in
denying his motion to vacate his PRQJOR status.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶10} Crim.R. 36 provides, “Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other
parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be
corrected by the court at any time.” A court may correct clerical errors in judgment
entries so that the record speaks the truth. State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio
St.3d 236, 2011-Ohio-235, 943 N.E.2d 535, ¶ 17. “Nunc pro tunc entries are limited in
proper use to reflecting what the court actually decided, not what the court might or
should have decided.” (Internal quotation marks omitted and alterations in original.)
Id.
{¶11} In its April 11, 2019 judicial entry, the juvenile court classified B.R. as a
Tier III sex offender with community notification. The sole reference to B.R.’s
PRQJOR classification came in the accompanying “Explanation of Duties” form, not
the entry itself. Further, even though the April 11, 2019 hearing transcript was not
included in the record on appeal, B.R.’s account of this hearing confirms the juvenile
court only classified B.R. as a Tier III sex offender with community notification at this
hearing. And as the state correctly notes, we must presume the regularity of the
juvenile court’s proceedings “[w]hen the appellant has failed in his duty to ensure that
the record on appeal includes the items necessary to the resolution of the assigned
errors.” State v. Johnson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170612, 2019-Ohio-287, ¶ 23,
citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384
(1980).
{¶12} The juvenile court’s April 11, 2019 judicial entry confirms it did not
intend to classify B.R. as a PRQJOR. The PRQJOR classification in the accompanying
“Explanation of Duties” form was a mere clerical error. The juvenile court’s
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
subsequent nunc pro tunc entry, therefore, properly reflected what the court actually
decided but recorded improperly.
{¶13} Because the juvenile court’s nunc pro tunc entry eliminated any
references to B.R.’s classification as a PRQJOR, the juvenile court did not err in
denying B.R.’s motion to vacate his classification. B.R.’s sole assignment of error is
accordingly overruled. The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
5