Background
Timothy G. Moredock pleaded guilty to fourth-degree-felony counts of domestic violence and strangulation. The charges arose from allegations that he choked his wife with both hands and threatened to kill her. At the time of the offenses, Moredock was on supervised release for a federal conviction, and he later served time in federal custody after that release was revoked.
While the Miami County case was pending, Moredock also was incarcerated in connection with a Greene County prosecution. At sentencing in Miami County, the trial court orally imposed concurrent prison terms of 12 months for domestic violence and 16 months for strangulation, also concurrent with the Greene County sentence. The written entry, however, imposed 18 months for strangulation and awarded three days of jail-time credit.
Moredock appealed, arguing that the trial court should have held a hearing on whether he deserved additional jail-time credit because of a Miami County detainer and that the written strangulation sentence should be corrected to match the 16-month term announced in court.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District rejected Moredock’s jail-time-credit argument. Although Moredock personally asserted at sentencing that a Miami County detainer may have prevented his release from Greene County custody, the trial court heard and considered his position and said counsel would investigate the detainer and whether the disputed period qualified for credit. No one objected to that procedure or requested a separate hearing. On that record, the appellate court found no error in the failure to conduct an additional oral hearing.
The court agreed, however, that the written sentencing entry did not accurately reflect the sentence pronounced at the hearing. Because the transcript showed that the trial court orally imposed 16 months for strangulation, the discrepancy was a clerical error that could be corrected through a nunc pro tunc entry. The court reversed the strangulation sentence and remanded for entry of the 16-month term, affirming the judgment in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- A felony sentencing court must determine jail-time credit, consider the parties’ arguments, and conduct a hearing if one is requested.
- The trial court did not have to conduct another oral hearing where it considered Moredock’s claim, proposed further investigation, and no party requested a separate hearing or objected to that approach.
- A nunc pro tunc entry may correct a written sentencing entry that inaccurately records the prison term orally imposed at sentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of expressly requesting a jail-time-credit hearing and objecting when the trial court’s proposed procedure is considered inadequate. Raising a credit dispute at sentencing does not necessarily establish that the court refused to consider it or was required to convene an additional hearing.
It also confirms that when a sentencing transcript and journal entry conflict because of a clerical mistake, the trial court may use a nunc pro tunc entry to make the written judgment accurately reflect the sentence actually pronounced.