Is 'Nunc pro Tunc' Correction of Clerical Error in Judgment Entry a Final Order Subject to New Appeal?

State of Ohio v. Stephen M. Lester, Case nos. 2010-1007 and 2010-1372

3rd District Court of Appeals (Auglaize County)

ISSUE: When a trial court fails to include the "means of conviction" in its judgment entry recording the conviction and sentence of a criminal defendant, and that conviction and sentence are upheld on appeal, if the court later makes a nunc pro tunc (now for then) correction in its journal to note that the defendant was convicted in a jury trial, does the entry of that correction constitute a final order in the case from which the defendant may initiate a new appeal of his conviction?