On Tuesday, February 24, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss a complaint filed by Isaiah Harris against Judge Christopher Rothgery of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas.
The case, State ex rel. Harris v. Rothgery, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-578, centered on Harris’s challenge to his original sentencing and a subsequent nunc pro tunc order issued by Judge Rothgery.
Harris was convicted in 2009 on multiple criminal offenses, including rape, and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 23 and a half years. The initial sentencing entry for the rape case stipulated that postrelease control was mandatory for “up to a maximum of 5 years.” Harris appealed his convictions, arguing insufficient evidence, but did not address the sentencing entry error.
While the appeal was pending, Judge Rothgery sua sponte issued a nunc pro tunc order to correct the sentencing entry, stating that postrelease control was mandatory for a term of five years.
In May 2024, Harris filed a complaint in the Ninth District Court of Appeals, seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition. He argued that the original sentence was void due to the postrelease control error and that Judge Rothgery lacked jurisdiction to issue the nunc pro tunc order while the case was on appeal. The Ninth District granted Judge Rothgery’s motion to dismiss.
The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that Harris had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law to challenge both the original sentencing entry and the nunc pro tunc order. The court determined that the initial sentencing error made the sentence voidable, not void, citing their previous decision in State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913. Because Judge Rothgery had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, the error was in the exercise of lawful jurisdiction. The court also stated that the Harper decision applies retrospectively, even to cases finalized before Harper was decided.
Regarding the nunc pro tunc order, the Supreme Court found that Judge Rothgery did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to issue the order. The court referenced State ex rel. Parker v. Russo, 2019-Ohio-4420, and State ex rel. Priest v. Dankof, 2015-Ohio-165, as precedents indicating that a trial court does not lose jurisdiction to correct a judgment entry via a nunc pro tunc order under Criminal Rule 36, even while an appeal is pending.
The court further stated that Harris possessed adequate remedies to challenge the nunc pro tunc order, such as moving the trial court to vacate the order or enter a revised sentencing entry, with the option to appeal any denial.
The Ohio Supreme Court also denied Harris’s motions for oral argument, judicial notice, and sanctions against Judge Rothgery.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
