Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant sought to correct an alleged clerical error in his sentencing judgment under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, following his conviction for multiple mail-related crimes, including murder and robbery. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences. He asserted that the written judgment's consecutive sentence contradicted the district court's oral pronouncement of concurrent sentences. The court, having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reviewed the motion under a clear error standard. Upon examination, the court found no evidence of a discrepancy between the oral and written records and upheld the written judgment as the authentic expression of the sentence. Consequently, the lower court's decision to deny the motion was affirmed. The opinion is designated as unpublished and not for citation except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Authenticity of Written Judgment in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized the written record as the authentic expression of the judge's sentence, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Reasoning: The ruling clarifies that, in collateral inquiries, courts regard the written record as the authentic expression of the judge's sentence.
Consecutive versus Concurrent Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant contended that the district court orally pronounced all sentences to run concurrently, which contradicted the written judgment. The court found no evidence to support this claim.
Reasoning: Pinkerton argues that the written judgment stating a consecutive sentence contradicts the district court's alleged oral pronouncement that all sentences were to run concurrently.
Correction of Clerical Errors under Rule 36subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examines whether there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment using a clear error standard. In this case, no discrepancy was found.
Reasoning: The review of the Rule 36 motion is conducted under a clear error standard.