[Cite as State v. Jacobs, 2024-Ohio-5734.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio/City of Maumee Court of Appeals No. L-24-1149 Appellee Trial Court No. 23CRB0868 v. Rayna Jacobs DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: December 6, 2024 ***** Daniel Arnold, Prosecuting Attorney, City of Maumee, for appellee.

Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

***** SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Rayna Jacobs, appeals the Maumee Municipal Court’s May 23, 2024 judgment which, she argues, contains a clerical error. The State concedes the error.

I. Facts {¶ 2} On November 5, 2023, Maumee Police filed a sworn complaint and summons charging Jacobs with theft, R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). The complaint listed the victim as the Kroger store, in Maumee, Ohio. On May 23, 2024, Jacobs pleaded no contest to attempted theft. The trial court found Jacobs guilty and sentenced her to 90 days at CCNO, 70 suspended with 20 days of electronic home monitoring, one year of probation, a $100 fine plus costs, and she was ordered “to have no contact with Meijer.”

{¶ 3} The May 23, 2024 sentencing judgment entry similarly ordered that Jacobs have no contact with Meijer. This appeal followed.

II. Assignment of Error {¶ 4} Jacobs raises the following assignment of error: 1. The court committed plain error when it ordered appellant to have no contact with Meijer, when the victim in this matter was Kroger.

III. Analysis {¶ 5} Jacobs’ sole assignment of error claims that the trial court committed plain error when it ordered her to have no contact with Meijer, not Kroger. The State concedes error.

{¶ 6} On review, the court agrees that there is an inconsistency between the victim in the complaint, Kroger, and the trial court’s order that Jacobs have no contact with Meijer. Accordingly, Jacobs’ assignment of error is well-taken.

2.

IV. Conclusion {¶ 7} The May 23, 2024 judgment of the Maumee Municipal Court is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the no contact order from Meijer to Kroger. Pursuant to App.R. 24, the State is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J.

JUDGE Myron C. Duhart, J.

JUDGE Charles E. Sulek, P.J.

CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

3.