Opinion ID: 2633317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Errors in the written judgment

Text: Our review of the record reveals several errors in the written judgment of conviction. We take this opportunity to express our concern respecting the increasing number of clerical errors appearing in written judgments of conviction filed in the district courts. The written judgment of conviction is an essential document in a criminal proceeding because it memorializes a defendant's conviction, his crime, and the terms of his sentence. [24] Its required contents are set forth by statute [25] and are relied upon by other courts long after the proceedings before the district court have passed. It is therefore critical that the written judgment contain accurate information. The district judge's signature on the document is required to ensure that it does so. [26] Yet written judgments containing errors are being presented to this court with increasing frequency. These clerical errors often concern basic, but vital, information, such as whether a defendant was convicted pursuant to a jury verdict or a guilty plea. And they appear to be the result of nothing more than inattentive drafting that could be easily avoided by a more careful review of the document below. Such errors needlessly inject uncertainty into criminal proceedings and their correction constitutes a waste of judicial resources. The written judgment in this case illustrates but one example of our concern and contains three errors that we must address. First, the written judgment states that Ledbetter's conviction was the result of a guilty plea. This is incorrect. Ledbetter was convicted pursuant to a jury verdict. Second, the written judgment states that Ledbetter was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in five years for each of the 26 sexual assault counts. Yet the official transcript of Ledbetter's March 16, 2004, sentencing hearing reveals that the district court orally pronounced a sentence of 26 terms of life in prison with the possibility of parole in 20 years for each of the counts. The sentence within the written judgment not only differs substantially from the oral pronouncement of Ledbetter's sentence, but it is incorrect as a matter of law. NRS 200.366 sets forth the possible penalties for the crime of sexual assault on a minor and has been amended several times since 1989, [27] which is the year Ledbetter's abuse of L.R. first began. Depending upon the dates of the offenses, the resulting bodily harm, and the age of the victim, that statute has provided for various terms of imprisonment. None of these terms, however, allowed for a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after five years under the facts of this case. Finally, the written judgment states that the prison terms for all 26 counts were imposed to run concurrently to one another. Yet the official transcript of Ledbetter's sentencing hearing reveals that the district court orally announced that count two would run consecutively to count one. Although a district court may modify an oral pronouncement of a defendant's sentence in a subsequent written judgment, [28] there is no indication in the record before us that the district court intended to do so in this case. Thus, we are uncertain whether the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of Ledbetter's sentence and the written judgment was the result of oversight. [29] We therefore remand this matter for the limited purpose of correcting or clarifying these errors and discrepancies in the written judgment. [30]