Opinion ID: 1990662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The District Court Erred by Denying Sims' Motion for an Order Nunc Pro Tunc.

Text: [7] The second aspect of the appeal before us pertains to the district court's denial of Sims' motion for an order nunc pro tunc. In that motion, Sims asked the district court to correct a discrepancy between the sentence orally pronounced at sentencing and the sentence written in the journal entry. At sentencing, the district court orally sentenced Sims on count III, attempted murder, to 10 to 25 years in prison, whereas the written journal entry states that Sims was sentenced to 20 to 25 years in prison for count III. The State acknowledges that there is a discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence and the written journal entry. We agree with Sims that his motion for an order nunc pro tunc should have been granted, and we reverse, and remand with directions. In addressing Sims' motion for an order nunc pro tunc, the district court denied the motion without discussing its reasoning. We note, however, that a review of the bill of exceptions from the hearing on the motion for an order nunc pro tunc reveals that the district court's main issue with the motion was the court's concern that the motion may not have been timely, because Sims filed the motion in his criminal case after the completion of his direct appeal. After expressing this concern, the district court went on to state, [A]s a practical matter, I don't see that it makes a difference, and I wouldn't object to making the change if after I reviewed the documents I believe that your argument was correct. [8] The parties agree, and the record shows, that a sentencing error occurred. A court has inherent power in a criminal case to correct its records to reflect the truth, nunc pro tunc. State v. Kortum, 176 Neb. 108, 110, 125 N.W.2d 196, 199 (1963). Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2001(3) (Reissue 2008) states that [c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court by an order nunc pro tunc at any time on the court's initiative or on the motion of any party.... We have previously explained: [T]he office of an order nunc pro tunc is to correct a record which has been made so that it will truly record the action had, which through inadvertence or mistake was not truly recorded. It is not the function of an order nunc pro tunc to change or revise a judgment or order, or to set aside a judgment actually rendered, or to render an order different from the one actually rendered, even though such order was not the order intended. Continental Oil Co. v. Harris, 214 Neb. 422, 424, 333 N.W.2d 921, 923 (1983). [9] We have applied the nunc pro tunc procedure in sentencing cases. See, State v. Kortum, supra ; State v. Ziemann, 14 Neb.App. 117, 130, 705 N.W.2d 59, 70 (2005) (citing Kortum for the proposition that [i]t is clear that a criminal sentence can be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc). This court has also held that the general rule that a judgment is no longer open to amendment, revision, modification, or correction after the term at which it was rendered does not apply where the purpose is to correct or amend clerical or formal errors so as to make the record entry speak the truth and show the judgment which was actually rendered by the court. Middle Loup P.P. & I.D. v. Loup River P.P.D., 149 Neb. 810, 32 N.W.2d 874 (1948) (Yeager, J., dissenting; Paine, J., joins). The district court's concern regarding the timeliness of Sims' motion was not warranted. [10-12] When determining if the sentencing error in this case should be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc, it is necessary to determine which sentence is legally enforceable. We have held that when the sentence orally pronounced at sentencing differs from a later written sentence, the former prevails. See State v. Schnabel, 260 Neb. 618, 618 N.W.2d 699 (2000). In Schnabel, we explained that a sentence validly imposed takes effect from the time it is pronounced. When a valid sentence has been put into execution, the trial court cannot modify, amend, or revise it in any way, either during or after the term or session of court at which the sentence was imposed. Id. Any attempt to do so is of no effect, and the original sentence remains in force. Id. Therefore, in this case, the sentence on count III, orally pronounced as 10 to 25 years in prison, was within the statutory range and was valid at the time it was pronounced, and the written journal entry stating that Sims was sentenced to 20 to 25 years in prison on count III was erroneous and of no legal effect. Looking at the record before this court, it appears that the erroneous written sentence was the result of a clerical mistake that occurred when the journal entry was created. The correction of the journal entry would not revise or alter a judgment entered; rather, it would correct the record to accurately state the judgment entered. The State does not clearly object to this court's acting to correct the sentence. However, the State argues that because Sims was sentenced to life in prison for his conviction on count I, the first degree murder charge, any error in the duration of his sentence for the conviction on count III, attempted murder, is of no consequence. In this regard, we note that we are aware that Sims has received a life sentence on count I. However, it is possible that the Nebraska Board of Pardons could commute the life sentence on count I to a term of years, in which case the sentence on count III could become relevant. See State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (2006) (discussing statutory authority for commuting sentences). We are not persuaded by the State's argument. [13] It is important to note that the purpose of [an order nunc pro tunc] is to correct the record which has been made, so that it will truly record the action really had, but which through some inadvertence or mistake has not been truly recorded. Calloway v. Doty, 108 Neb. 319, 322, 188 N.W. 104, 105 (1922). Therefore, even if correcting the erroneous journal entry proves to have no practical effect, it ensures the integrity of the system and the accuracy of the record of the court. Given the discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence on count III and the written entry relating thereto, we conclude that the orally pronounced sentence is controlling and that Sims' motion for an order nunc pro tunc correcting the erroneous written entry should have been granted. The district court's denial should be and is hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to correct the written entry.