State v. Isenogle , 2022 Ohio 1257 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 2021CA00079
:
MATTHEW RYAN ISENOGLE :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No.
2021CR0728A
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED; CASE REMANDED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 14, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
KYLE L. STONE KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY
STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR 236 Third St. SW
Suite 100 Carnegie Building
LISA A. NEMES Canton, OH 44702
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Matthew Ryan Isenogle appeals the June 18, 2021
sentencing judgment entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee
is the State of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Indictment
{¶2} On April 8, 2021, the Stark County Grand Jury returned a secret indictment
against Defendant-Appellant Matthew Ryan Isenogle for four counts of criminal activity:
COUNT ONE
The grand jurors of Stark County, Ohio, by virtue of their aforesaid authority
and oaths, do find and present that: MATTHEW RYAN ISENOGLE on or
about November 26, 2020 in the County of Stark, Ohio aforesaid, did
knowingly manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the production of
a controlled substance, and the drug involved in the violation of division (A)
of this section was any compound, mixture, preparation, or substance
included in Schedule I or II, with the exception of methamphetamine or
marihuana, to wit: methamphetamine a Schedule II drug and/or did aid or
abet each other in so doing, in violation of Section 2925.04(A)(C)(2) of the
Revised Code, a Felony of the Second Degree, against the peace and
dignity of the State of Ohio.
COUNT TWO
* * * MATTHEW RYAN ISENOGLE on or about November 26, 2020 in the
County of Stark, Ohio aforesaid, did knowingly assemble or possess one or
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
more chemicals that may be used to manufacture a controlled substance in
Schedule I or II with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance in
Schedule I or II, to wit: methamphetamine, as Schedule II drug and the
chemical or chemicals assembled or possessed in violation of division (A)
of this section may be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation
of Section 2925.041(A)(C) of the Revised Code, a Felony of the Third
Degree, against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.
COUNT THREE
* * * MATTHEW RYAN ISENOGLE on or about November 26, 2020 in the
County of Stark, Ohio aforesaid, did knowingly obtain, possess, or use a
controlled substance or a controlled substance analog and the drug
involved in the violation is a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance
included in Schedule I or II, to wit: methamphetamine, a Schedule II drug
and the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds the bulk amount but
is less than five times the bulk amount [sic] abet each other in so doing, in
violation of Section 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(b) of the Revised Code, a Felony of
the Third Degree, against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.
COUNT FOUR
* * * MATTHEW RYAN ISENOGLE on or about November 26, 2020 in the
County of Stark, Ohio aforesaid, did knowingly obtain, possess, or use a
controlled substance or a controlled substance analog and and [sic] the
drug involved in the violation was a fentanyl-related compound * * *, in
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
violation of Section 2925.11(A)(C)(11)(a) of the Revised Code, a Felony of
the Fifth Degree, * * *.
{¶3} Isenogle entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. After his request for the
bill of particulars, the State responded as to Count One:
Count 1: Illegal Manufacture of Drugs, § 2925.04(A)(C)(2)
That on or about 11/26/2020, and at the location of 6025 Whipple Ave NW, North
Canton, OH 44720, Stark County, the Defendant, Matthew Ryan Isenogle, did
knowingly manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a
controlled substance, and the drug involved in the violation of division (A) of this
section was any compound, mixture, preparation, or substance include in
Schedule I or II, with the exception of methamphetamine or marihuana, to wit:
methamphetamine a Schedule II drug and/or did aid or abet each other in so doing,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against
the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.
Jury Trial
{¶4} The matter proceeded to a jury trial on June 8 and 9, 2021. The following
facts were adduced at trial.
Backpack Meth Lab
{¶5} On November 26, 2020, Officer Ryan Mack with the Jackson Township
Police Department was dispatched to a scrap yard located at 6025 Whipple Avenue NW
in Canton, Ohio. The owner of the scrap yard had called the police when she observed
two men inside a running vehicle parked in the yard. The men appeared to be passed
out.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
{¶6} Officer Mack and another officer approached the vehicle, which was running
and in reverse. There were two male occupants. Officer Mack approached the
passenger’s side when the passenger woke up and he identified himself as Isenogle.
Isenogle’s speech was very lethargic as if from slumber or impairment due to drugs or
alcohol. The man in the driver’s seat was Nicholas Conley. Isenogle and Conley were
removed from the vehicle.
{¶7} Conley was the registered owner of the vehicle, and he gave the officers
permission to search the vehicle. On the floor of the back of the vehicle, Officer Mack
found a backpack with a two-liter bottle filled with a liquid and other substances inside.
He stopped searching the vehicle and put the two-liter bottle on the top of the vehicle. His
supervisor was concerned the bottle might be a one-pot for cooking methamphetamine,
so an officer from the Stark County Sheriff’s Department with specialized training was
called to the scene.
{¶8} Deputy Sheriff Jarrod Blanc assigned to the Stark County Metropolitan
Narcotics Unit arrived on the scene. He had specialized training on how to safely
disassemble methamphetamine labs. He observed the two-liter bottle containing a clear
liquid and white sludge sitting on the top of the vehicle, which based on his training and
experience, appeared to be a one-pot meth lab. Using his training, he collected the
contents of the two-liter bottle to be sent to the crime lab and safely disposed of the
remainder of the bottle. The contents of the bottle were determined to be 14.63 grams of
methamphetamine, a Schedule II substance. After the two-liter bottle had been
disassembled, Agent Blanc took over the investigation and continued the search of the
vehicle.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
{¶9} In the front compartment on the center console, Agent Blanc found a folded
piece of paper containing a tan-in-color substance. It appeared to Agent Blanc to be some
sort of opioid, which testing determined to be 0.12 grams of fentanyl. He moved to the
trunk area of the vehicle and found a trash bag with “lab trash” associated with the
production of methamphetamine: an empty box of instant cold packs, Walgreens Wall-
Phed nasal decongestant, an empty container of AA lithium batteries, a wrapper to a
bottle of muriatic acid, and Zippo lighter fluid.
Hotel Meth Lab
{¶10} Conley was interviewed at the scene by the Jackson Township Police
Department officers and it was determined there may be another meth lab at the Red
Roof Inn located in Jackson Township, Ohio. The room was registered to Conley and he
gave Agent Blanc permission to search the room. Officer Mack reported to the Red Roof
Inn with Agent Blanc where they used the key provided by Conley to open the door and
search the two-bed room. On the two beds, there were large amounts of clothing and
appeared to be occupied by two people but there was nothing identifying that the property
belonged to Isenogle. The officers found a backpack in the room that contained chemicals
typically located in a meth lab, but there were no identifying marks on the backpack. In
the bathroom, Officer Mack observed a two-liter bottle with hoses coming from the top
sitting on the top of the toilet tank. Agent Blanc described it as an acid gas generator used
in the production of methamphetamine. Crime lab testing showed traces of
methamphetamine on the bottle.
{¶11} Agent Blanc interviewed Isenogle who stated he was staying at the Red
Roof Inn with Conley. The State played two phone calls placed from Isenogle’s account
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
with the Stark County Jail for the jury. (State’s Exhibits P-1 and P-2). Isenogle identified
himself in the call and Agent Blanc identified Isenogle’s voice in the phone calls. In one
call, Isenogle indicated he had been living in the Red Roof Inn prior to being in jail. He
asked the recipient of the call for money because he had paid all week at the Red Roof
Inn. In the second call, Isenogle admitted to taking fentanyl with Conley in the vehicle. He
told the recipient of the call that the items found by the police in Conley’s car belonged to
Conley. He admitted that he had been staying at the Red Roof Inn prior to November 26,
2020 and the room had cost him $70 per night.
Crim.R. 29 Motion
{¶12} At the close of the State’s case, Isenogle moved for a Crim.R. 29 motion for
acquittal. The first matter he raised was Count One of the indictment, where the State
charged Isenogle under R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2). R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2) was applicable to
every other Schedule I or II drug but for marijuana and methamphetamine, and the
evidence in the case regarded only the manufacture of methamphetamine. R.C.
2925.04(A)(C)(3) was applicable to methamphetamine. Isenogle argued that because the
State’s evidence was only to participation in the manufacture of methamphetamine, there
was insufficient evidence under R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2). Second, there was no evidence
that Isenogle did anything more than ride in the car with Conley or stay in Conley’s hotel
room. The trial court denied the motion.
Jury Instructions and Verdict Form
{¶13} Isenogle rested without presenting evidence. The trial court charged the jury
and relevant to this appeal, as to Count One:
Count One: Illegal Manufacturing of Drugs
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
The Defendant is charged with one count of illegal manufacture of drugs.
Before can you find [sic] the Defendant guilty, you must find beyond a
reasonable doubt that one or about the 26th day of November, 2020, in
Stark County, Ohio, the Defendant knowingly manufactured or otherwise
engaged in any part of the production of a controlled substance, and the
drug involved was any compound, mixture, preparation or substance, to wit:
methamphetamine, or did aid or abet another in doing so.
(T. 218-219).
{¶14} After the trial court charged the jury but before closing arguments, Isenogle
requested the jury instructions be modified to reflect that the State charged Isenogle with
a violation of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2), not 2925.04(A)(C)(3). The trial court denied the
request because Isenogle did not object to the jury instructions before the jury had been
charged with the jury instructions.
{¶15} The jury was provided the following verdict form as to Count One:
WE, THE JURY IN THIS CASE, DULY IMPANELED AND SWORN, DO
FIND THE DEFENDANT, MATTHEW ISENOGLE * OF ILLEGAL
MANUFACTURE `OF DRUGS, PURSUANT TO R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3).
Jury Verdict
{¶16} After deliberation, the jury returned verdicts finding Isenogle guilty of Count
One, Illegal Manufacture of Drugs, and Count Four, Possession of Fentanyl-Related
Compound. The jury found Isenogle not guilty of Count Two, Illegal Assembly or
Possession of Chemicals by the Manufacture of Drugs, and Count Three, Aggravated
Possession of Drugs.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
{¶17} The trial court set the matter for a sentencing hearing. Isenogle renewed
his Crim.R. 29 motion as to Count One and requested the trial court to dismiss the charge.
The trial court denied the motion.
Motion to Amend Indictment
{¶18} On June 10, 2021, the State filed a motion to amend the indictment and bill
of particulars to correct the statute from R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2) to 2925.04(A)(C)(3) in
Count One. The State argued Isenogle would not suffer any prejudice because the
amendment did not alter the name or substance of the offense charged in the indictment,
nor did it alter the level of the offense. It was merely a typographical error. Further, the
jury was verbally instructed on the correct subsection and the jury was provided the
correct jury instructions and verdict form.
{¶19} The trial court granted the motion on June 14, 2021.
Sentencing Hearing
{¶20} Isenogle appeared for the sentencing hearing on June 14, 2021. On Count
One, the trial court sentenced him to a minimum of five years in prison and on Count
Four, the trial court sentenced him to twelve months in prison. The sentences were to be
served concurrently, for an aggregate mandatory minimum prison term of five years up
to a maximum prison term of seven and a half years.
{¶21} At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Isenogle objected to the State’s
motion for an amendment of the charges because it changed the nature and identity of
the charge.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
Journalization of Verdict and Sentencing Judgment Entry
{¶22} On June 18, 2021, the trial court journalized the verdict. It stated in pertinent
part:
This day, June 8, 2021, this cause having been regularly assigned for Trial,
came on for hearing before the Jury, the same being duly impaneled and
sword, upon the Indictment for the crimes of Illegal Manufacturing of Drugs,
1 Ct. [R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2)] * * *.
***
It was the unanimous verdict of the Jury that the defendant is guilty of the
crimes of Illegal Manufacture of Drugs, 1 Ct. [R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2)] * * *.
{¶23} Also, on June 18, 2021, the trial court filed the Sentencing Judgment Entry.
It stated in relevant part:
This day, June 14, 2021, came the defendant, MATTHEW RYAN
ISENOGLE, in the custody of the Sheriff, accompanied by his counsel, Ty
Graham, Esq., having heretofore been found guilty on June 9, 2021 by a
jury of the crimes of Illegal Manufacture of Drugs, 1 Ct. [R.C.
2925.04(A)(C)(2)] * * *.
***
The Court finds that the Defendant has been found guilty of Illegal
Manufacture of Drugs, 1 Ct., a violation of Revised Code Section
2925.04(A)(C)(2), a felony of the second degree subject to the mandatory
prison term under division (F) of Section 2929.13 of the Ohio Revised Code.
***
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
defendant shall serve an indefinite mandatory minimum prison term of five
(5) years on the charge of Illegal Manufacture of Drugs, 1 Ct. [R.C.
2925.04(A)(C)(2)](F2), as contained in Count One, * * *.
{¶24} On June 25, 2021, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc of the journalization
of the verdict. The nunc pro tunc judgment entry, however, referred to the charge in Count
One as “R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2).”
{¶25} Isenogle filed an appeal of the June 18, 2021 judgment entry of conviction.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶26} Isenogle raises three Assignments of Error:
{¶27} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
PERMITTING THE STATE TO AMEND COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT/BILL OF
PARTICULARS FOLLOWING THE VERDICT OF THE JURY.
{¶28} “II. THE JURY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON COUNT
ONE OF THE INDICTMENT – ILLEGAL MANUFACTURE OF DRUGS UNDER R.C.
2925.04(A)(C)(2).
{¶29} “III. THE JURY’S VERDICT ON COUNT ONE WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
ANALYSIS
I.
{¶30} In his first Assignment of Error, Isenogle contends the trial court erred when
it permitted the State to amend Count One of the indictment and bill of particulars.
{¶31} Crim. R. 7(D) provides:
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
The court may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the
indictment, information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any
defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance
with the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of
the crime charged. If any amendment is made to the substance of the
indictment, information, or complaint, or to cure a variance between the
indictment, information, or complaint and the proof, the defendant is entitled
to a discharge of the jury on the defendant's motion, if a jury has been
impaneled, and to a reasonable continuance, unless it clearly appears from
the whole proceedings that the defendant has not been misled or prejudiced
by the defect or variance in respect to which the amendment is made, or
that the defendant's rights will be fully protected by proceeding with the trial,
or by a postponement thereof to a later day with the same or another jury.
Where a jury is discharged under this division, jeopardy shall not attach to
the offense charged in the amended indictment, information, or complaint.
No action of the court in refusing a continuance or postponement under this
division is reviewable except after motion to grant a new trial therefor is
refused by the trial court, and no appeal based upon such action of the court
shall be sustained nor reversal had unless, from consideration of the whole
proceedings, the reviewing court finds that a failure of justice resulted.
{¶32} This Court has consistently held that although Civ.R. 7(D) permits most
amendments, it flatly prohibits amendments which change the name or identity of the
crime charged. State v. Merritt, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2020 CA 0063, 2021-Ohio-2847,
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
2021 WL 3674080, ¶ 47 citing State v. O'Brien, 30 Ohio St.3d 122, 126, 30 OBR 436, 508
N.E.2d 144 (1987). A trial court commits reversible error when it permits an amendment
which changes the name or identity of the offense charged, regardless of whether the
defendant suffered prejudice. State v. Smith, Franklin App. No. 03AP–1157, 2004-Ohio-
4786, 2004 WL 2008465, at ¶ 10. See, also, State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 6 OBR
526, 453 N.E.2d 716. “Whether an amendment changes the name or identity of the crime
charged is a matter of law.” State v. Cooper, 4th Dist. Ross App. No. 97CA2326, 1998
WL 340700 (June 25, 1998), citing State v. Jackson, 78 Ohio App.3d 479, 605 N.E.2d
426 (1992). The issue before this Court is whether the State’s amendment from one
subparagraph of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C) to another subparagraph of the same subsection
changed the name or identity of the crime charged within the meaning of Crim.R. 7(D).
{¶33} The indictment and bill of particulars stated Isenogle violated R.C.
2925.04(A)(C)(2). The statute reads:
(A) No person shall knowingly cultivate marihuana or knowingly
manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a
controlled substance.
***
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the drug involved in the
violation of division (A) of this section is any compound, mixture,
preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of
methamphetamine or marihuana, illegal manufacture of drugs is a felony of
the second degree, and, subject to division (E) of this section, the court shall
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
impose as a mandatory prison term a second degree felony mandatory
prison term.
{¶34} The trial court granted the State’s motion to amend the indictment and bill
of particulars to R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3), which reads:
(A) No person shall knowingly cultivate marihuana or knowingly
manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a
controlled substance.
***
(C)(3) If the drug involved in the violation of division (A) of this section is
methamphetamine, the penalty for the violation shall be determined as
follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, if the
drug involved in the violation is methamphetamine, illegal manufacture of
drugs is a felony of the second degree, and, subject to division (E) of this
section, the court shall impose a mandatory prison term on the offender
determined in accordance with this division. Except as otherwise provided
in this division, the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term a second
degree felony mandatory prison term that is not less than three years. If the
offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of
division (A) of this section, a violation of division (B)(6) of section 2919.22
of the Revised Code, or a violation of division (A) of section 2925.041 of the
Revised Code, the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term a second
degree felony mandatory prison term that is not less than five years.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
{¶35} Isenogle argues that when the State amended the indictment and the bill of
particulars, it changed the identity of the crime charged. He states he was convicted of a
crime never presented to the grand jury, never charged in the indictment, and never
amended prior to his conviction. The verdict form presented to the jury identifying the
statute as the R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3) was the only time in the proceedings the State
correctly identified the statute upon which it argued Isenogle should be convicted. Further,
Isenogle mentions, and this Court also discovered, the original and nunc pro tunc
sentencing entries filed after the State was granted its motion to amend continued to use
the incorrect statute, R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2).
{¶36} The State contends that its amendment of the indictment and bill of
particulars complied with Crim.R. 7(D). It states that considering the details in the
indictment and bill of particulars beyond the typographical error as to the statutory citation,
in conjunction with the evidence presented at trial, Isenogle had ample warning and
suffered no surprise or prejudice by the amendment.
{¶37} Reviewing the indictment and the bill of particulars in consideration of the
arguments raised in Isenogle’s appellate brief, we find the amendment did not change the
name or identity of the crime charged. R.C. 2925.04(A) prohibits the illegal manufacture
of drugs, stating that, “[n]o person shall knowingly cultivate marihuana or knowingly
manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a controlled substance.”
The subparagraphs of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C) more specifically describe the prohibited
controlled substances. R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2) excepts the manufacture of
methamphetamine. R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3) applies to the production of
methamphetamine. Violations of both are second degree felonies. While the State cited
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2), which excepts methamphetamine, the only drug described in
Count One of the indictment and bill of particulars was methamphetamine (“to wit:
methamphetamine a Schedule II drug”). The indictment and bill of particulars clearly
indicated methamphetamine was the controlled substance Isenogle had allegedly
knowingly manufactured or otherwise engaged in any part of the production.
{¶38} Despite the incorrect reference to R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2), the substantive
information stated in the indictment and bill of particulars provided Isenogle with ample
warning that he was charged with a violation of the illegal manufacture of
methamphetamine pursuant to R.C. 2925.04(A). See State v. Campbell, 100 Ohio St.3d
361, 2003-Ohio-6804, 800 N.E.2d 356, ¶ 6. The amendment did not change the name
and the identity of the charged offense. The difference between the subparagraphs of
R.C. 2925.04(A)(C) is the type of prohibited controlled substance. The only controlled
substance identified by the State as to the illegal manufacture of drugs was
methamphetamine.
{¶39} The evidence at trial as to Count One regarded only the illegal manufacture
of methamphetamine. The jury instructions and verdict form for Count One correctly
referenced R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3). The June 18, 2021 and June 25, 2021 sentencing
judgment entries issued after the trial court granted the amendment of the indictment and
bill of particulars, however, refer to “R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2)” instead of R.C.
2925.04(A)(C)(3). We sua sponte remand the case for correction of the trial court’s June
18, 2021 and June 25, 2021 sentencing judgment entries.
{¶40} Trial courts retain jurisdiction to correct clerical errors in judgment entries
so that the entries accurately reflect the trial court's decision. State v. Davidson, 8th Dist.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
Cuyahoga No. 110625, 2022-Ohio-694, 2022 WL 715095, ¶ 11 citing State ex rel.
Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 19; Crim.R.
36 (“[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in the
record arising from oversight or omission, may be corrected by the court at any time”).
Clerical mistakes refer to mistakes or omissions that are “mechanical in nature and
apparent on the record” and do not address a legal decision or judgment. Id. citing State
v. Brown, 136 Ohio App.3d 816, 820, 737 N.E.2d 1057 (3rd Dist.2000), citing Dentsply
Internatl., Inc. v. Kostas, 26 Ohio App.3d 116, 118, 498 N.E.2d 1079 (8th Dist.1985).
While courts have inherent authority to correct clerical errors in judgment entries so that
the record is accurate, “nunc pro tunc entries ‘are limited in proper use to reflecting what
the court actually decided, not what the court might or should have decided or what the
court intended to decide.’” State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276, 2002-Ohio-
6323, 779 N.E.2d 223, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158,
164, 656 N.E.2d 1288 (1995).
{¶41} Because the trial court granted the amendment of the indictment and bill of
particulars on June 14, 2021, which we have affirmed, the June 18, 2021 and June 25,
2021 sentencing entries contain clerical errors that can be corrected through a nunc pro
tunc entry. The sentencing entries should be corrected to reflect R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3).
Therefore, we sua sponte remand the matter to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc
entry that shows Isenogle’s conviction under R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3).
{¶42} Isenogle’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
II. and III.
{¶43} In his second and third Assignments of Error, Isenogle argues his conviction
for R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3) is against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
We disagree.
{¶44} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. The standard of review for
a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d
259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the syllabus, in which the Ohio Supreme
Court held, “An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
{¶45} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing the
entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility
of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly
lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must
be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387,
678 N.E.2d 541. Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
evidence and ordering a new trial should be reserved for only the “exceptional case in
which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id.{¶46} Isenogle argues in the first instance that his conviction for the illegal
manufacture of drugs was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence
because he was charged with a violation of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(2), which excepted
methamphetamine. The evidence presented at trial was exclusively related to the illegal
production of methamphetamine. As we discussed in our resolution of the first
Assignment of Error, we find no error as to the amendment of the charge.
{¶47} In the second instance, Isenogle contends his conviction for the illegal
manufacture of drugs was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence
because the State did not establish that he knowingly manufactured or otherwise
engaged in any part of the production of methamphetamine, or aided and abetted in the
illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. He contends the State did not present any
direct evidence tying Isenogle to the one-pot meth lab.
{¶48} Isenogle was convicted of aiding and abetting with the illegal manufacture
of drugs. R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) states, “No person, acting with the kind of culpability required
for the commission of an offense, shall do any of the following: * * * Aid or abet another
in committing the offense.” R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3) reads:
(A) No person shall knowingly cultivate marihuana or knowingly
manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a
controlled substance.
***
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
(C)(3) If the drug involved in the violation of division (A) of this section is
methamphetamine, the penalty for the violation shall be determined as
follows:
***
{¶49} The police found Isenogle passed out in Conley’s vehicle. After a search of
the vehicle, the police discovered a backpack containing a two-liter bottle used in the
production of methamphetamine. Lab trash associated with the production of
methamphetamine was found in the trunk of Conley’s vehicle. Further investigation
brought the police to a hotel room at the Red Roof Inn, where Isenogle admitted to Agent
Blanc and in a jail phone call that he was staying with Conley in the hotel room. Isenogle
also said in the phone call that he had paid $70.00 a night for the room. The two-bed
room had a single bathroom. In the bathroom, on top of the toilet, the police discovered
equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The room contained clothes and
lab trash associated with the production of methamphetamine.
{¶50} The jury in this case was presented with multiple charges: illegal
manufacture of drugs, illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture
of drugs, aggravated possession of drugs, and possession of a fentanyl-related
compound. The jury found Isenogle not guilty of illegal assembly or possession of
chemicals for the manufacture of drugs and aggravated possession of drugs. The jury’s
not guilty findings show it considered the evidence and discerned the State demonstrated
beyond a reasonable doubt that Isenogle aided and abetted the illegal manufacture of
methamphetamine. There was direct evidence that Isenogle was found in the vehicle
containing a two-liter bottle containing methamphetamine and meth lab trash. However,
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
Isenogle’s presence in Conley’s car and the discovery of the methamphetamine and
methamphetamine-related debris was not in isolation. The inference that Isenogle aided
and abetted in the illegal manufacture of drugs coalesced when the investigation of
Conley’s car led the police to the Red Roof Inn. Isenogle admitted he was staying with
Conley at the hotel and that he had paid for the hotel room. In the hotel room’s only
bathroom, the remains of a meth lab sat openly on top of the toilet. Meth lab trash was
found in the room, along with the clothes of two occupants. Isenogle’s admitted
occupancy in the hotel room and that he paid for the hotel room where a meth lab was
found substantiated the inference that he aided and abetted the manufacture of
methamphetamine.
{¶51} Upon our review, we find sufficient evidence to support the conviction for
the correctly amended charge of R.C. 2925.04(A)(C)(3), and no manifest miscarriage of
justice.
{¶52} Isenogle’s second and third Assignments of Error are overruled.
[Cite as State v. Isenogle, 2022-Ohio-1257.]
CONCLUSION
{¶53} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed, and
the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and law.
By: Delaney, J.,
Hoffman, P.J. and
Baldwin, J., concur.