Background
Roosevelt Walker-McAfee entered guilty pleas on June 18, 2025, in five consolidated criminal cases involving aggravated robbery (first-degree felony with firearm specification), felonious assault (second-degree), two counts of domestic violence (fourth-degree), burglary (second-degree), weapons while under disability (multiple counts), attempted trafficking, and drug possession. The plea agreement was structured as a package deal, with the parties recommending a minimum aggregate prison sentence of nine years.
At sentencing on June 23, 2025, the trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 11 years and stated in open court that no fines were being imposed. However, the sentencing journal entries in two cases (CR-25-700115-A and CR-25-699197-A) recited “DEFENDANT TO PAY MANDATORY $7,500.00 FINE.” Three months into the appeal, the trial court attempted to issue nunc pro tunc entries claiming these fine recitals were transcription errors, but the appellate court found those corrective entries void for lack of jurisdiction.
Walker-McAfee appealed pro se, raising four assignments of error challenging the fines and court costs recited in the journal entries and claiming his pleas were unknowing and involuntary due to inadequate advisement about mandatory fines, that he was sentenced in absentia, that the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions and sentences. Critically, the court ruled that no mandatory fine actually attached to Walker-McAfee’s offenses under Ohio law. R.C. 2929.18(B)(1)’s mandatory fine provision applies only to first-, second-, and third-degree felonies involving violations of drug and alcohol statutes (R.C. Chapters 2925, 3719, and 4729). Aggravated robbery and felonious assault—the charges on which the “$7,500 fines” were recited—are not subject offenses. Accordingly, the “$7,500.00 fine” language in the journal entries was indeed a clerical transcription error, as the trial court and State later conceded.
The court found the trial court properly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by advising Walker-McAfee, before accepting his pleas, of the maximum penalties for each level of offense involved (first through fourth-degree felonies). Walker-McAfee confirmed he understood those penalties and had no questions. Because no mandatory fine existed for his convictions and the trial court imposed no fine in open court, his pleas were entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim, reasoning that counsel cannot be deficient for failing to challenge a fine that did not exist and was never imposed.
On the Crim.R. 43(A) claim (sentencing in absentia), the court found the journal-entry recital of fines not pronounced in open court was erroneous but did not warrant vacating convictions or resentencing. The remedy was corrective journal entries. However, the court held that the trial court’s December 17, 2025 nunc pro tunc entries were void because once a notice of appeal is filed, trial courts lose jurisdiction except to take actions in aid of the appeal; corrections relating to matters assigned as error exceed that narrow authority. The court also clarified that while court costs were ordered in all five cases, trial courts retain continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 2947.23(C) to waive, suspend, or modify costs at any time, so Walker-McAfee can seek relief without appellate intervention.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory fine statutes are narrowly tailored by statute and do not apply to violent felonies like aggravated robbery and felonious assault; counsel and courts must understand the specific offenses to which mandatory fines attach.
- Once a notice of appeal divests a trial court of jurisdiction, nunc pro tunc entries correcting matters assigned as error are void; the remedy for clerical discrepancies is corrective entries on appellate remand.
- Sentencing compliance requires that financial sanctions be announced in open court; journal-entry recitals not orally pronounced are improper and must be corrected, though such errors do not automatically require resentencing.
- Defendants retain independent avenues to challenge court costs even absent objection at sentencing, as trial courts maintain continuing jurisdiction to modify or waive costs.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical guidance on the application and limits of Ohio’s mandatory fine statutes, which practitioners and trial courts frequently misapply. By clarifying that mandatory fines apply only to specific drug and alcohol offenses, the court prevents improper sentencing and potential appellate reversals. The decision also underscores the importance of accurate sentencing administration: journal entries must faithfully reflect what the court pronounced, and clerical errors, while not necessarily fatal to convictions, must be corrected through proper procedure.
Equally significant is the court’s treatment of appellate jurisdiction. The holding that nunc pro tunc entries become void once an appeal is perfected reinforces the finality principle while preserving a curative remedy—remand for correction—that respects both appellate authority and the trial court’s need to correct its record. The decision also reinforces that trial courts’ continuing jurisdiction to modify costs provides defendants with a meaningful mechanism to challenge financial sanctions post-sentencing, even if that challenge is not preserved at trial.