Opinion
A22-1516
02-23-2023
Robert Quarry Jackson, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-98-064711
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and Cochran, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Tracy M. Smith Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Robert Quarry Jackson challenges the denial of his motion to correct a sentence not authorized by law under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9. This is Jackson's fourth appeal to this court. See Jackson v. State, No. A10-1719 (Minn.App. Feb. 25, 2011) (order opinion affirming the district court's summary denial of appellant's motion for correction of sentence); Jackson v. State, No. A07-2272, 2008 WL 5136952, at *1 (Minn.App. Dec. 9, 2008) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief); State v. Jackson, 615 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Minn.App. 2000) (holding that joinder of offenses was not prejudicially erroneous and there was no abuse of discretion in denying a Schwartz hearing), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 17, 2000).
2. An appellate court reviews the district court's denial of a motion to correct a sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, for an abuse of discretion. Townsend v. State, 834 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Minn. 2013). An appellate court "review[s] the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard." Id.
3. At issue is a discrepancy between the district court's oral sentencing pronouncement and the original warrant of commitment. At Jackson's sentencing hearing, the district court orally imposed concurrent prison terms for two of Jackson's three convictions (33 months for assault and 386 months for one count of second-degree murder) and a consecutive prison term for Jackson's third conviction (306 months for a second count of second-degree murder), for a total of 692 months. However, the original warrant of commitment stated that all three terms were imposed concurrently, for a total of 386 months. Approximately four months after the warrant of commitment was filed, the district court filed an amended warrant of commitment that conformed with the oral pronouncement at sentencing.
4. In his motion to correct his sentence, Jackson argued that the district court erred by filing the amended warrant of commitment instead of vacating his sentence and remanding for resentencing. Jackson acknowledged that the original warrant of commitment misstated his sentence.
5. The district court summarily denied Jackson's motion because the amended warrant of commitment reflected Jackson's correct sentence and Jackson was not prejudiced by the fact that his written warrant of commitment contained a mistake for approximately four months.
The district court also correctly rejected Jackson's contention that Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 35 applied. That rule does not apply to state criminal proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(a)(1), 35.
6. When a district court's orally pronounced sentence differs from the written warrant of commitment, the oral pronouncement controls. State v. Statloch, 643 N.W.2d 329, 331 (Minn.App. 2002). Thus, the oral pronouncement of 692 months controls over the original written warrant of commitment. As a result, the amended warrant of commitment, which is consistent with the oral pronouncement, reflects the correct sentence.
7. Under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, "[c]lerical mistakes in a judgment, order, or in the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time, or after notice if ordered by the court." Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 10. A clerical mistake is "usually a mistake in the clerical work of transcribing the particular record . . . [and] . . . cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion." State v. Walsh, 456 N.W.2d 442, 443 (Minn.App. 1990) (quoting Wilson v. City of Fergus Falls, 232 N.W. 322, 323 (Minn. 1930)); see State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759, 768 (Minn. 1999) (same). Here, the discrepancy in the original warrant of commitment was a mistake of transcription, not of judgment. Thus, it was a clerical mistake that did not require vacating Jackson's sentence-the district court could correct that mistake "at any time." Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 10.
8. Because the district court did not err in correcting the clerical error in the warrant of commitment, its order denying Jackson's motion to correct his sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.