Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Shingleton

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District

September 13, 2013

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GEORGE R. SHINGLETON Defendant-Appellant

Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No. 81-CR-76

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHELE PHIPPS, Atty. Reg. #0069829, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

GEORGE R. SHINGLETON #163-500, Lebanon Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellant, pro se

OPINION

FAIN, P.J.

(¶ 1} Defendant-appellant George Shingleton appeals from an order denying his motion for resentencing. Shingleton contends that the trial court erred by failing to vacate his 1981 sentencing entry and refusing to grant him a new sentencing hearing.

(¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court properly corrected a clerical omission in the original sentencing entry through a revised sentencing entry, and the trial court was not required to hold a new sentencing hearing. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

I. Course of Proceedings

(¶ 3} Following a 1981 jury trial, Shingleton was found guilty of Aggravated Murder and Aggravated Robbery. On June 1, 1981, the trial court sentenced Shingleton to life imprisonment on the Aggravated Murder conviction. The sentencing entry did not state that Shingleton's conviction was the result of a jury verdict, and did not mention the Aggravated Robbery conviction. Shingleton appealed from his conviction. We affirmed his conviction in April 1982. State v. Shingleton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 7375 (April 29, 1982).

(¶ 4} Shingleton subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief The trial court overruled the petition. We affirmed the trial court's decision. State v. Shingleton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17546, 1999 WL 961153 (July 9, 1999).

(¶ 5} In March 2011, Shingleton filed a "Motion Requesting Revised Journal Entry, " contending that the omissions from the sentencing entry of any reference to his Aggravated Robbery conviction or the manner of his conviction rendered the original sentencing entry void for failing to comply with Crim.R. 32(C). Dkt. 8. According to Shingleton, these omissions required the vacation of his conviction and sentence and a new sentencing hearing. In its response to Shingleton's motion, the State submitted a copy of the trial court's 1981 order merging the Aggravated Robbery conviction with the Aggravated Murder conviction, pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. The trial court's order also stated that no sentence would be imposed on the

Aggravated Robbery conviction.

(¶ 6} The trial court overruled Shingleton's March 2011 motion, finding that the original sentencing entry's omission of the manner of conviction made that entry only voidable, not void, and subject to correction with a new sentencing entry without a new sentencing hearing. The trial court also found that the omission of any reference to the Aggravated Robbery conviction from the original sentencing entry was not error, because the original trial judge merged the Aggravated Robbery conviction with the Aggravated Murder conviction.

(¶ 7} In July 2011, Shingleton filed a "Motion for New Sentencing Entry." Dkt. 15. The court granted the motion in November 2011, and issued a nunc pro tunc judgment entry of conviction and sentence stating that Shingleton's Aggravated Murder conviction was by jury verdict and sentencing Shingleton to imprisonment "for a term of not less than LIFE." Dkt. 16, 17.

(¶ 8} In December 2012, Shingleton filed a "Motion Seeking Reconsideration" of the trial court's denial of his March 2011 Motion Requesting Revised Journal Entry. In support of his motion, Shingleton cited Mller v. Alabama, ___U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), but provided no guidance as to why Mller required a revised journal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.