Background
Sylvanus A. Wade pleaded guilty in 2022 to felonious assault and burglary after the State dismissed repeat-violent-offender specifications. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed an aggregate indefinite prison sentence of seven to ten and one-half years. Wade did not appeal the sentencing judgment.
In December 2025, Wade moved to correct the sentencing entry through a nunc pro tunc order. He sought a ruling that he had a presumption of earned early release based on exceptional conduct or adjustment to incarceration. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Wade also challenged his sentence as disproportionate to his codefendants’ sentences and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed the denial of Wade’s motion to correct the sentencing entry. A nunc pro tunc entry under Criminal Rule 36 may correct only a clerical, mechanical error apparent in the record; it cannot make a substantive change or reconsider a legal sentencing decision. Wade’s request challenged the lawfulness of his underlying sentence, rather than identifying a clerical error.
The court dismissed Wade’s sentencing-proportionality and ineffective-assistance claims to the extent they attacked the 2022 sentencing judgment. He neither timely appealed that judgment nor obtained leave for a delayed appeal. Those claims also were not raised in his 2025 motion and therefore were forfeited. Any alleged sentencing errors were voidable, not void, and could have been raised on direct appeal, making them barred by res judicata.
Key Takeaways
- A nunc pro tunc entry cannot be used to obtain substantive resentencing relief.
- Challenges to a final sentencing judgment generally must be brought through a timely direct appeal or a properly authorized delayed appeal.
- Claims not raised in the trial court are ordinarily forfeited on appeal, and voidable sentencing errors are subject to res judicata.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow function of Criminal Rule 36: it permits correction of clerical mistakes, not collateral challenges to sentencing decisions. Defendants seeking to contest sentence legality, proportionality, or counsel’s performance must preserve and pursue those issues through the appropriate appellate process.