Background
Aaron Gill was convicted of drug-trafficking, drug-possession, weapons, and related specification offenses and received an aggregate sentence of 20 to 25½ years. In his direct appeal, the First District reversed all sentences except the sentence for having a weapon while under a disability and remanded for resentencing, including merger of allied offenses and firearm specifications.
Gill appealed that decision to the Ohio Supreme Court on September 5, 2024. Although the trial court had held a resentencing hearing before then, it journalized a resentencing entry on September 25, 2024. Gill appealed that entry, and the First District decided that second appeal in 2025 and again remanded for resentencing. The trial court entered another resentencing judgment in August 2025, from which Gill brought this appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The First District held that the September 2024 resentencing entry was void. Gill’s notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court had perfected the appeal from the first appellate decision and divested the trial court of jurisdiction, except to act in aid of that appeal. Because a court speaks through its journal entries, the relevant act was the September 25 journalization, not the earlier hearing.
The court further held that the later proceedings founded on the void September 2024 judgment were also void, including the First District’s 2025 decision and the August 2025 resentencing entry. It vacated those entries and its prior 2025 opinion and judgment. Because the current appeal was taken from a void judgment rather than a final appealable order, the court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- Perfecting an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court divests the trial court of jurisdiction except for actions in aid of the appeal.
- A resentencing judgment journalized while that appeal is pending is void, even if the sentencing hearing occurred before the appeal was filed.
- Judgments and appellate rulings that flow from a void sentencing entry are likewise void.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that timing of journalization matters in criminal resentencing. A trial court cannot cure the jurisdictional defect by relying on the date it conducted the hearing; it must have jurisdiction when it enters the judgment.
The ruling returns the parties to their post-remand position following Gill’s first appeal. Absent a further appeal, the trial court may then carry out the original remand instructions.