[Cite as State v. Baisden, 2026-Ohio-3143.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JACKSON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
: Case No. 24CA15
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
:
v. :
: DECISION AND JUDGMENT
BRYSON BAISDEN, : ENTRY
:
Defendant-Appellant. :
: RELEASED: 08/10/2026
APPEARANCES:
Christopher Pagan, Middletown, Ohio, for appellant.
Trenton Douthett, Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Wilkin, J.
{¶1} This is an appeal of a Jackson County Court of Common Pleas
judgment entry in which Bryson Baisden (“Baisden”) was convicted after a jury
trial of aggravated possession of drugs, receiving stolen property, and tampering
with evidence. On appeal, Baisden contends: 1) his conviction for tampering with
evidence was contrary to law because the State presented insufficient evidence
of an essential element of the offense; and 2) the trial court imposed an unlawful
consecutive sentence. After reviewing the parties’ arguments, the record, and
the applicable law, we find Baisden’s assignments of error to lack merit and
therefore affirm the trial court. However, we remand the case to the trial court for
the limited purpose of correcting the sentencing entry.
Jackson App. No. 24CA15 2
BACKGROUND
{¶2} In October 2021, M.L. reported someone had stolen his 2013 Arctic
Cat 700 four-wheeler, which was later entered into a statewide database as a
stolen vehicle. Shortly after, on November 2, 2021, while employed by the
Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Leif Smith (“Smith”) responded to a call
that Baisden had been riding the stolen four-wheeler. Smith knew Baisden from
past encounters. At the time Smith received the information, he was not “on
duty”; however, he drove his cruiser to investigate and found Baisden with the
stolen four-wheeler at the old drive-in on State Route 93, between Glenroy and
Coalton in Jackson County. When Smith questioned Baisden, Baisden said he
obtained the four-wheeler (which had its original ignition punched out and two
wires exposed from hotwiring) from a man named Blazer. Not only did Baisden
say he knew the four-wheeler was stolen, the four-wheeler had also obviously
been painted with the factory paint showing through.
{¶3} Smith detained Baisden. Before patting Baisden down, Smith asked
Baisden if he had anything illegal on his person. At that point, Baisden removed
a hypodermic syringe from his pocket. Once Baisden produced the hypodermic
needle, Smith believed that Baisden might have an illegal substance on his
person. Smith then advised Baisden to turn around so Smith could perform the
pat-down.
{¶4} As Baisden turned around, he bent forward and made a tossing
motion--then Smith heard the noise of an object striking something metal. Once
Smith completed the pat-down, he placed Baisden in his cruiser. Then Smith Jackson App. No. 24CA15 3
went back to retrieve the object in the area where Baisden had thrown it and
discovered a pill bottle containing a crystalline substance. Smith believed the
substance to be methamphetamine (which later testing confirmed to be .48
grams of methamphetamine). When Smith confronted Baisden about the object,
Baisden said, “damn.”
{¶5} On May 15, 2023, a Jackson County Grand Jury returned an
indictment against Baisden for three counts: aggravated possession of drugs
(methamphetamine), a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and
(C)(1)(a); receiving stolen property, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2913.51(A) and (C); and tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1).
{¶6} On July 10, 2023, the trial court found Baisden incompetent to stand
trial but restorable and remanded him to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
After Baisden was restored to competency, the case proceeded to a jury trial on
June 10, 2024. At the conclusion of the State’s case, Baisden made a Crim.R.
29(A) motion for acquittal. The trial court overruled the motion. The jury
subsequently found Baisden guilty of all counts.
{¶7} The trial court set the hearing for sentencing on a separate date, and
Baisden failed to appear. When Baisden did appear, the trial court imposed
maximum consecutive sentences, for an aggregate 66-month term, set forth in
an entry dated September 20, 2024.
{¶8} Baisden submitted a notice of appeal with two assignments of error. Jackson App. No. 24CA15 4
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
I. THE CONVICTION FOR F3 TAMPERING WAS CONTRARY TO
LAW.
II. THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED AN UNLAWFUL CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCE.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Baisden contends that his conviction
for tampering with evidence was contrary to law because the State failed to
present sufficient evidence of each element of the offense. Specifically, Baisden
asserts the State failed to prove he knew that the deputy was acting officially
when the deputy investigated the concealed methamphetamine.
{¶10} The State acknowledges that the deputy investigating the case was
off duty at the time of the offense; however, contends that the deputy was in
uniform and driving his police cruiser at the time when he encountered Baisden
so there was no indication that Baisden even knew the deputy was off duty.
Further, the State points to several facts that show Baisden knew an official
investigation was underway when he concealed the methamphetamine, and also
distinguishes the cases cited by Baisden on appeal.
A. Law.
1. Standard of Review
{¶11} “In general, a claim of insufficient evidence invokes a due process
concern and raises the question of whether the evidence is legally sufficient to
support the verdict as a matter of law.” State v. King, 2022-Ohio-4616, ¶ 22 (4th
Dist.), citing State v. Schroeder, 2019-Ohio-4136, ¶ 59 (4th Dist.); State v. Jackson App. No. 24CA15 5
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Thus, “[w]hether the evidence is
legally sufficient to sustain a conviction is a question of law that this court reviews
de novo.” State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2804, ¶ 16, citing State v. Groce, 2020-Ohio-6671, ¶ 7. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution the court asks whether “ ‘ “any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” Id.,
quoting State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 150, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio
St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. Accordingly, “[t]he appropriate
standard of review for a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is ‘whether, if
believed, the evidence can sustain the verdict as a matter of law.’ ” Id. at ¶ 17,
quoting State v. Richardson, 2016-Ohio-8448, ¶ 13.
{¶12} In proving its case, the State may rely on either direct or
circumstantial evidence. “Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently
possess the same probative value.” State v. Barnes, 2020-Ohio-3943, ¶ 24 (4th
Dist.), citing Jenks, paragraph one of the syllabus. In fact, “all courts have
concluded that a defendant may be convicted solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.” State v. Burns, 2025-Ohio-5442, ¶ 26 (4th Dist.), citing
State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 151 (1988); State v. Anderson, 2018-Ohio2013, ¶ 40 (4th Dist.). Circumstantial evidence is defined as “ ‘[t]estimony not
based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy,
but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts
sought to be proved.’ ” State v. Meddock, 2017-Ohio-4414, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), Jackson App. No. 24CA15 6
quoting State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St. 3d at 150, (1988), quoting Black's Law
Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979).
2. Tampering with Evidence
{¶13} Baisden challenges his conviction for tampering with evidence.
Tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), provides “[n]o
person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is
about to be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]lter, destroy, conceal, or remove
any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as
evidence in such proceeding or investigation[.]” “ ‘There are three elements of
this offense: (1) the knowledge of an official proceeding or investigation in
progress or likely to be instituted, (2) the alteration, destruction, concealment, or
removal of the potential evidence, (3) the purpose of impairing the potential
evidence's availability or value in such proceeding or investigation.’ ” State v.
Stevens, 2023-Ohio-362, ¶ 14 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Straley, 2014-Ohio2139 ¶ 11. “ ‘The likelihood of an investigation is measured at the time of the
alleged tampering.’ ” State v. Bradshaw, 2018-Ohio-1105, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.) quoting
State v. Martin, 2017-Ohio-7556, ¶ 110, citing Straley at ¶ 19, and State v. Barry,
2015-Ohio-5449, ¶ 2.
{¶14} The definition of “knowingly,” is set forth in R.C. 2901.22(B):
A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is
aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result
or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of
circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances
probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact
is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a
person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its Jackson App. No. 24CA15 7
existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose
to avoid learning the fact.
{¶15} Therefore, the defendant must be “ ‘aware that conduct will probably
cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature or that circumstances
probably exist.’ ” Bradshaw at ¶ 22, quoting Barry at ¶ 24. (Emphasis in
original.) In addition, the statute “ ‘provides that a person can be charged with
knowledge of a particular fact only if that person “subjectively believes that there
is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a
conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.” ’ ” Id. quoting Barry at ¶ 24.
(Emphasis in original), quoting R.C. 2901.22(B). Thus, “ ‘the definition of
“knowingly” does not encompass knowledge that a reasonably diligent person
should, but does not, have.’ ” Id. quoting Barry at ¶ 24. As a result,
“ ‘constructive knowledge is insufficient to prove that [an accused] knew that an
investigation was ongoing or likely to be commenced.’ ” Id. quoting Barry at ¶ 25.
“ ‘Ohio law does not impute constructive knowledge of an impending
investigation based solely on the commission of an offense.’ ” Id., citing Barry at
¶ 2. “However, ‘knowledge of a likely investigation may be inferred when the
defendant commits a crime that is likely to be reported.’ ” (Emphasis in original.)
State v. Stevens, 2023-Ohio-362, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Martin, 2017-Ohio-7556, ¶ 118.
B. Analysis
{¶16} In the instant case, while challenging the same element of the
offense on appeal, “(1) the knowledge of an official proceeding or investigation in
progress or likely to be instituted,” Baisden presents a slightly different argument Jackson App. No. 24CA15 8
than he contended during the trial when he made a Crim.R. 29(A) motion. At
trial, while Baisden appeared to acknowledge that the State showed an
investigation was in progress as it related to the four-wheeler, Baisden asserted
that the State failed to prove that he knew an investigation was in progress as it
related to the methamphetamine. On appeal, however, he asserts, “[t]his is a
different issue than whether Baisden knew that an investigation was active or
likely when he acted to conceal the methamphetamine. The State had to prove
both knowledge of official acts and knowledge of an investigation related to
methamphetamine. * * * While the State elicited some evidence related to drugs,
it produced no evidence it was official.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, he
argues on appeal that the State “elicited no evidence that the deputy’s actions
were official ones when they were performed off duty.” He claims that because
tampering measures the criminal liability at the time of the act of the tampering,
the State could only rely on testimony of facts that occurred at the point in time
he concealed the methamphetamine to prove knowledge. He concedes in his
reply brief that “there was sufficient evidence that he knew, when he tossed the
contraband, that an investigation was in progress over drugs.” Baisden reiterates
that “[w]hat was missing was his knowledge of an official investigation when he
tossed the contraband.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶17} In light of Baisden’s arguments on appeal, we first emphasize that
the statutory language indicates the State had to prove either that Baisden knew
an official proceeding or investigation was in progress, or was about to be or
likely to be instituted. We find that the State presented sufficient circumstantial Jackson App. No. 24CA15 9
evidence of this element of the offense. Smith indicated he had “past
encounters” with Baisden. Smith testified that he could see the four-wheeler’s
headlights when he pulled in to the scene where Baisden and the four-wheeler
were located and other evidence showed he was in a cruiser. Smith questioned
Baisden about a four-wheeler that had been stolen. In the process of patting
Baisden down when detaining him, Smith asked Baisden if he had anything
illegal on him, including illegal substances, and Baisden produced a hypodermic
syringe. At that point, Smith asked Baisden to turn around, and at that time,
Baisden threw what was later to be discovered as a pill bottle containing
methamphetamine. Baisden responded, “damn” when Smith told him he had
found the pill bottle.
{¶18} These facts are circumstantial evidence that Baisden knew the
official nature of the investigation because Baisden complied with many of
Smith’s directives, responding to authority (answering questions about the fourwheeler, turning over the syringe, turning around to be patted down, etc.). While
at trial, even though Smith indicated he was “off duty” at the time of the
investigation, there is no indication that Baisden knew of that fact—otherwise he
would not have submitted so quickly to several lawful commands.
{¶19} For these reasons, we cannot find merit to Baisden’s first
assignment of error and affirm the trial court.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Baisden avers that the trial court
imposed unlawful consecutive sentences because it failed to make the required Jackson App. No. 24CA15 10
consecutive-sentencing findings at the hearing but later supplied them in the
written entry. The State responds that the record clearly and convincingly shows
the trial court properly followed sentencing procedure under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)
when assessing the consecutive sentence.
A. Law.
{¶21} We review Baisden’s sentence pursuant to the dictates of
R.C. 2953.08(G). See State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 16. R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), provides that
[t]he court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this
section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the
sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for
resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate
court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and
convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's
findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division
(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section
2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that “ ‘contrary to law’
[means] ‘in violation of statute or legal regulations at a given time[.]’ ” State v.
Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 34, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990).
Therefore, “ ‘ “a sentence is generally not contrary to law if the trial court
considered the R.C. 2929.11 purposes and principles of sentencing as well as
the R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors, properly applied post[-Jackson App. No. 24CA15 11
]release control, and imposed a sentence within the statutory range.” ’ ” State v.
Allen, 2021-Ohio-648, ¶ 14 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Perry, 2017-Ohio-69, ¶ 21
(4th Dist.), quoting State v. Brewer, 2014-Ohio-1903, ¶ 38 (4th Dist.).
{¶23} “Ordinarily, appellate courts defer to the broad discretion trial courts
have in making sentencing decisions, and R.C. 2953.08(G) also reflects that
deference.” State v. Nickell, 2025-Ohio-1232, ¶ 83 (4th Dist.). This is because
“[a] trial judge has the opportunity to preside over the trial, hear witnesses testify,
hear the defendant make his allocution directly to the sentencing judge, and hear
from the victims at sentencing.” Id. citing State v. Blanton, 2025-Ohio-237, ¶ 30
(4th Dist.), citing State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 39. “Thus, appellate courts
should possess no inherent right to second guess a felony sentence.” Id. Except
“to the extent specifically directed by statute, ‘it is not the role of an appellate
court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the
appropriateness of a particular sentence.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Id. quoting
Blanton, citing State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 39. Accordingly, the appellate
court should give “broad deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision and not
serve as a ‘second-tier’ sentencing court.” Nickell, 2025-Ohio-1232, ¶ 82 (4th
Dist.), citing Blanton at ¶ 30, citing Glover at ¶ 39.
{¶24} In that light, the statute does not allow an appellate court to reverse
or modify a sentence on the basis that the trial court abused its discretion. Id. at
¶ 85, citing Blanton at ¶ 31, and Glover at ¶ 45. “ ‘The plain language of R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court’s consecutivesentence findings and the trial court’s findings must be upheld unless those Jackson App. No. 24CA15 12
findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.’ ” State v.
Hurst, 2024-Ohio-5544, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio3851, ¶ 5 (lead opinion). “ ‘The clear-and-convincing standard for appellate
review of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is written in the negative.’ “ Id., quoting Gwynne at
¶ 13. “Moreover, ‘clear and convincing evidence’ is ‘that measure or degree of
proof which is more than a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the
extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal
cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or
conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ” State v. Brummett, 2025-Ohio-5307, ¶ 33 (4th Dist.), quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954),
paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶25} Regarding consecutive sentences, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:
If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of
multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the
prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive
service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to
the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds
any of the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple
offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing,
was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16,
2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under postrelease control for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as
part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused
by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so
great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the
offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct
adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.
Jackson App. No. 24CA15 13
(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates
that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the
public from future crime by the offender.
{¶26} We acknowledge that in general, “a statutory presumption exists in
favor of concurrent sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.41(A) and R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) governs the imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment.”
State v. Wyke, 2025-Ohio-4990, ¶ 42 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Collins, 2024-Ohio-2891, ¶ 23 (4th Dist.), citing Glover at ¶ 38. Accordingly, “[t]o justify the
imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment, ‘a trial court must make the
findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and
incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but the court has no obligation to
state reasons to support its findings.’ ” Id. quoting State v. Blair, 2019-Ohio-2768
¶ 52, (4th Dist.), citing State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, syllabus. In addition, it
is well-established that the trial court is not required to use “talismanic words” as
long as the necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated
into the sentencing entry. State v. Wyke, 2025-Ohio-4990, ¶ 48 (4th Dist.) and
State v. Sines-Riley, 2025-Ohio-3200, ¶ 12 (4th Dist.), citing Bonnell at ¶ 37.
B. Analysis
{¶27} Baisden begins his sentencing challenge by claiming the trial court
pronounced “incomplete findings at sentencing.” Baisden goes on to
acknowledge, in essence, that the entry more explicitly sets forth three of the
findings made at the hearing. However, he points out that the trial court did not
reference in any fashion at the hearing the finding that “two of the multiple Jackson App. No. 24CA15 14
offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct” which
nevertheless appears in the entry.
{¶28} As it pertains to consecutive sentences, the trial court stated on the
record at the hearing:
The court finds those sentences need to be served consecutively. It's
necessary to protect the public. The punishment is not
disproportionate. The criminal history demonstrates that these
sentences need to be consecutive.
{¶29} Even though the trial court did not recite the statute in detail, or
verbatim, it is clear from the record that it performed the proper analysis set forth
in the statute. While a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), it is not required to recite “ ‘a word-for-word recitation of the
language of the statute * * *.’ ” State v. Robinson, 2019-Ohio-2155, ¶ 33 (4th
Dist.), quoting State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, paragraph 2 of the syllabus,
¶ 29. “ ‘[A]s long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged
in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to
support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.’ ” Id., quoting
Bonnell at ¶ 29. See, e.g., State v. Amero, 2024-Ohio-1007, ¶ 45 (11th Dist.);
State v. Jackson, 2024-Ohio-583, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.); State v. Peoples, 2022-Ohio953, ¶ 59 (10th Dist.).
{¶30} Moreover, the trial court was required to make only one of the
findings set forth in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)—either (a), (b), or (c). See State v.
Tolliver, 2026-Ohio-1615, ¶ 30 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Runyon, 2024-Ohio5039, ¶ 23 (3d Dist.). The trial court demonstrated that it analyzed the statute to
find that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) applied in the instant case, i.e., that, “the Jackson App. No. 24CA15 15
offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences
are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
{¶31} Furthermore, the sentencing entry sets forth the findings for the
imposition of consecutive sentences in more detail. The entry states:
Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) the [c]ourt orders that consecutive
sentences are made necessary to protect the public from future
crime or punish the defendant, and that consecutive sentences are
not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and
to the danger the defendant poses to the public, and because:
The defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect to the public
from future crime by the defendant.
At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part
of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by
two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so
great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the
offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct
adequately reflects the seriousness of the defendant’s
conduct.
{¶32} Here, we agree with Baisden that the trial court did not recite on the
record the finding “multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more
courses of conduct,” pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b), even though the trial
court entered that finding in its entry. “Generally, a trial court speaks through its
journal entries and not by oral pronouncement.” State v. Stutes, 2023-Ohio4582, ¶ 38 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Guilkey, 2005-Ohio-3501, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.).
“But there is an exception in criminal cases ‘because the defendant has a
constitutional right to be present at every stage of the proceedings and to know
his sentence at the sentencing hearing.’ ” Id. citing State v. Rhodes, 2011-Ohio5153, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.), citing Crim.R. 43. Moreover, “[i]f the trial court fails to Jackson App. No. 24CA15 16
make the requisite findings at the sentencing hearing, the imposition of
consecutive sentences is contrary to law even if the sentencing entry includes
the findings.” State v. Farmer, 2024-Ohio-6063, ¶ 65 (4th Dist.), citing State v.
Conn, 2023-Ohio-2669, ¶ 26 (4th Dist.) and State v. Nolan, 2024-Ohio-1245, ¶
18 (4th Dist.).
{¶33} However, a trial court need only make one of the findings under
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) and the trial court made a finding under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(c) both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry.
See, e.g., State v. Writesel, 2017-Ohio-8795, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). Accordingly,
because the trial court was only required to make one of the findings from R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), and (c), and it did make one of those findings on the record
and incorporated that finding in the entry (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c)), the trial court
must correct the sentencing entry to reflect what actually occurred at the hearing
by a nunc pro tunc entry to omit the finding in the entry of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b).
{¶34} “A trial court has authority to ‘correct “clerical mistakes in judgments,
orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from
oversight or omission, at any time.” ’ ” State v. Jackson, 2025-Ohio-2070, ¶ 10
(8th Dist.), citing State v. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-1371, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), quoting
Crim.R. 36. “Proper use of a nunc pro tunc entry is limited to correcting a clerical
error in a judgment or order so that the record reflects what the court actually did
or decided.” State v. Yancy, 2025-Ohio-5135, ¶ 64 (8th Dist.), citing State v.
Lester, 2011-Ohio-5204, ¶ 18, citing State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St. 3d
158, 164 (1995). Even though a nunc pro tunc entry cannot be used to supply Jackson App. No. 24CA15 17
omitted action or to indicate what the court might or should have done or
intended to do, a nunc pro tunc should be used to reflect what actually
happened. Id.; State v. Wright, 2019-Ohio-1361, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). Discrepancies
between a consecutive-sentencing finding made at a sentencing hearing and the
consecutive-sentence finding included in a sentencing entry does not require a
full resentencing hearing and can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry. See
State v. Diallo, 2025-Ohio-920, ¶ 43 (10th Dist.) (instead of new sentencing
hearing, a nunc pro tunc entry could be used to set out what actually occurred at
hearing when the sentencing entry included a consecutive sentencing finding the
trial court made, but also included consecutive sentence findings not made at the
hearing); State v. Palmer, 2023-Ohio-2719, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.) (when sentencing
entry journalized R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b), rather than R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), the
finding that the trial court made at the hearing, appellate court held that the error
in journalizing the consecutive-sentence findings can be corrected by nunc pro
tunc entry).
{¶35} In the case sub judice, our review of the record shows that the trial
court made the findings at the hearing that were necessary to impose
consecutive sentences. In addition, we observe that the findings necessary to
impose consecutive sentences are set out in the sentencing entry. However, we
also find that Baisden is correct that the trial court did not make a finding at the
hearing that two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more
courses of conduct. Accordingly, we sustain Baisden’s second assignment of
error to the extent that it asserts the sentencing entry erroneously includes a Jackson App. No. 24CA15 18
finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) but overrule the second assignment of error
to the extent it argues that the trial court’s finding of consecutive sentences is
contrary to law. As explained above, this cause must be remanded for the
limited purpose of the trial court preparing a nunc pro tunc entry consistent with
what occurred at the hearing. We, therefore, affirm the second assignment of
error, in part, as to the imposition of consecutive sentences, but sustain the
second assignment of error, in part, insofar as the trial court’s sentencing entry
essentially references a finding not made at the sentencing hearing (R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(b)).
CONCLUSION
{¶36} In conclusion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand
the matter for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to correct its clerical
error by issuing an appropriate nunc pro tunc entry.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
Jackson App. No. 24CA15 19
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED AND CAUSE
REMANDED and appellant shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Jackson County 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.
Abele, J. and Hess, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court,
BY: ____________________________
Kristy S. Wilkin, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 22, this document constitutes a final
judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.