STATE v. SARLI, Unpublished Decision (6-14-1999)

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JOSEPH SARLI, III, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

No. 74292Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
Date June 14, 1999

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

JOURNAL ENTRY
The Journal Entry and Opinion of this court released on June 3, 1999 in the above case contained an error on page 6, in the second sentence of the first paragraph discussing appellant’s third assignment of error, as follows:

The transcript of the hearing reflects that the trial court properly conducted a hearing in this matter pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(B) and, based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, determined that appellant was a sexual predator.

This error is hereby corrected to read as follows:

The transcript of the hearing reflects that the trial court properly conducted a hearing in this matter pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(C) and, based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, determined that appellant was a sexual predator.

Further, the Journal Entry and Opinion of this court released on June 3, 1999 in this case contained an error on page 11, in the in the last paragraph, as follows:

Appellant’s appeal is overruled; however, since the Sentencing Addendum issued by the lower court is inconsistent with the transcript, this matter is remanded in order that the trial judge may issue a nunc pro tunic
journal entry reflecting that appellant was determined to be a sexual predator pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(B), as reflected in the transcript, and not R.C. 2950.09(A), as reflected in the Sentencing Addendum.

This error is hereby corrected to read as follows:

Appellant’s appeal is overruled; however, since the Sentencing Addendum issued by the lower court is inconsistent with the transcript, this matter is remanded in order that the trial judge may issue a nunc pro tunc journal entry reflecting that appellant was determined to be a sexual predator pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(C), as reflected in the transcript, and not R.C. 2950.09(A), as reflected in the Sentencing Addendum.

It is hereby ordered that said Journal Entry and Opinion of June 3, 1999 be amended nunc pro tunc to correct the errors in this opinion as stated above.

It is further ordered that, as so amended, said Journal Entry and Opinion of June 3, 1999 shall stand in full force and effect in all its particulars.

The corrected entry is attached.

PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J. and ANN L. KILBANE, J. CONCURRING

___________________________________ KENNETH A. ROCCO PRESIDING JUDGE

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD. v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., 53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)

53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)2015-Ohio-5019 CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v.…

2 years ago

McCAMMON v. COOPER, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904)

McCammon v. Cooper, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904) Jan. 5, 1904 · Supreme Court of Ohio · No. 8237…

5 years ago

BANK OF AM., N.A. v. SMITH, 2018-Ohio-3638

[Cite as Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith, 2018-Ohio-3638.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST…

7 years ago

STATE v. MARCUM, 2018-Ohio-1009 (2018)

[Cite as State v. Marcum, 2018-Ohio-1009.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF…

8 years ago

In re A.F., 2018-Ohio-310 (Oh. App. 1/26/2018)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY IN RE: :…

8 years ago

Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2017-007

March 13, 2017 The Honorable Paul J. Gains Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney 6th Floor Administration…

8 years ago