Background
Monica G. Justice appealed an amended sentencing entry entered after the Tenth District’s prior decision in her case. In that earlier appeal, the court found plain error because the trial court had not given the notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c), and it remanded solely for a limited resentencing hearing to provide those notifications.
On remand, Justice appeared pro se at a July 22, 2025 hearing. The trial court entered an amended sentencing entry supplying the required notifications while expressly leaving her previously imposed sentence unchanged. Justice then argued that the amended entry was void for lack of service and challenged aspects of her consecutive sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. Although Justice asserted that she had not been served with the amended sentencing entry, the court held that she had not shown an effect on a substantial right. She was present at the resentencing hearing, timely appealed, and attached the amended entry to her notice of appeal.
The court also held that res judicata barred Justice’s new sentencing arguments. The remand was limited to providing R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications, and the amended entry did not alter the original sentence. Challenges to the consecutive sentences could have been raised in her prior appeal and could not be litigated anew in this limited resentencing appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A limited resentencing remand does not reopen all aspects of the original sentence.
- Claims challenging an unchanged sentence are barred if they could have been raised in an earlier appeal.
- An asserted service defect is not reversible error without prejudice to a substantial right.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the scope of a remand controls the scope of any later appeal. When a trial court merely corrects a notification error and leaves the original sentence intact, a defendant generally cannot use the amended entry to renew challenges to the underlying sentencing decision.