Opinion ID: 2596037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court Intended to Order Restitution in Accordance with the Plea Agreement

Text: ¶ 15 A clerical error is one made in recording a judgment that results in the entry of a judgment which does not conform to the actual intention of the court. Thomas A. Paulsen Co., 770 P.2d at 130. Indeed, [t]he correction [of a clerical error] must be undertaken for the purpose of reflecting the actual intention of the court and parties. Lindsay v. Atkin, 680 P.2d 401, 402 (Utah 1984); see also Bishop, 2002 UT 36, ¶ 32, 48 P.3d 218 (amending jury verdict because accurately recording the intent of the jury in its calculation of the damage award constitutes correction of a clerical error, not a judicial error). While the intent of the parties may be taken into account in the clerical error analysis, it is ultimately the intent of the court or fact finder that is binding. ¶ 16 The State argues that the original order of restitution as recorded did not conform with the intent of the district court and the parties. Specifically, the State argues that when the district court entered the original order of restitution, the intent of the district court as well as both parties was to order Mr. Rodrigues to pay restitution in accordance with the plea agreement. In support of this position, the State directs our attention to (1) the plea agreement, (2) the PSR, (3) the dialogue between the parties and the court at the sentencing hearing, and (4) the district court's original order of restitution. ¶ 17 In May 2005, Mr. Rodrigues entered into a plea agreement wherein he agreed to pay restitution in the amount of the total amount of child support arrears owed for the support of [his] children on both counts from May 1, 1999 through the date of sentencing. The plea agreement further specified that Mr. Rodrigues agreed to calculate child support at the rate of $617.00 per month ($289.00 to Jennifer Falsone and $328.00 to Michele Rodrigues) plus interest. At the time Mr. Rodrigues entered into the plea agreement his sentencing date was set for July 11, 2005. Mr. Rodrigues, however, failed to appear and instead left the state. Mr. Rodrigues was not actually sentenced until more than a year and a half later on March 19, 2007. ¶ 18 The PSR confirms that Mr. Rodrigues owed $289 per month to Ms. Falsone and $328 per month to Ms. Rodrigues. The PSR further indicates that the State sought restitution in the total amount of child support arrears ... owed for both families from May 1, 1999, through the date of sentencing and [a]s of February 2, 2007, that amount totals $63,507.71. While the PSR does not include the total amount owed from May 1, 1999, through March 19, 2007, the actual date of sentencing, it indicates the State's intent to seek restitution through the date of sentencing in conformity with the plea agreement. During the sentencing hearing, Mr. Rodrigues unambiguously indicated that he concurred with the recommendations in the PSR. ¶ 19 The district court's statements at the sentencing hearing further demonstrate that it intended to order restitution in accordance with the plea agreement. The court recited the amount of restitution it believed Mr. Rodrigues owed. The State indicated that the total was actually even higher, because child support payments continued to accrue through today's date pursuant to the plea agreement. Mr. Rodrigues did not object to the State's characterization of the total amount of child support owed. The court then asked, [s]o what do you show as the total? In response, the State indicated that Mr. Rodrigues owed $30,680.96 ... for one, and $24,078.76 ... for the other. The court added the two figures and stated, [s]o it looks like the total arrearage is $54,760. Clearly the district court was under the impression that the $54,760 figure represented the amount of child support arrears owed to both of Mr. Rodrigues's ex-wives from May 1, 1999, through March 19, 2007, pursuant to the plea agreement. ¶ 20 The district court's original restitution order also supports a finding that the court intended to order restitution through March 19, 2007, the date of sentencing, in conformity with the plea agreement; it states that the award of restitution represents child support arrears for [Mr. Rodrigues's] children with [Ms.] Falsone and [Ms.] Rodrigues through March 19, 2007. ¶ 21 We are further persuaded that the district court intended to order restitution in conformity with the plea agreement by the fact that the amount of restitution ordered for Ms. Falsone accurately represents Mr. Rodrigues's child support obligations under the plea agreement, i.e. child support arrears owed to Ms. Falsone from May 1, 1999, through March 19, 2007, the date of sentencing, while the amount of restitution ordered for Ms. Rodrigues does not conform to Mr. Rodrigues's obligations under the plea agreement. We find it unlikely that the court, without reason, would choose to order an inequitable amount of restitution for two similarly situated victims. ¶ 22 In light of the plea agreement, the PSR, the exchange during the sentencing hearing, and the court's original restitution order, it is clear that the intent of the district court and the expectation of the parties was that Mr. Rodrigues would pay restitution through the date of sentencing in accordance with the plea agreement. The figure provided by the State as restitution owed to Ms. Rodrigues did not accurately represent Mr. Rodrigues's child support arrears through the date of sentencing as set forth in the plea agreement. Therefore, the order of restitution as recorded did not conform to the actual intention of the court and this prong of our analysis suggests that the error was clerical. We now address whether the error was the result of judicial reasoning and decision making.