Opinion ID: 2542376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Written Judgment Sentencing Machniak to Three Years Probated Three Years Prevails Over the Trial Court's Oral Statements to the Contrary.

Text: When there is a conflict between a court's oral statements and the written judgment, the written judgment controls. Commonwealth v. Taber, 941 S.W.2d 463 (Ky.1997); Commonwealth v. Hicks, 869 S.W.2d 35 (Ky.1994). While other jurisdictions may employ a different rule, the law in Kentucky is clear as to the preeminence of a written judgment or order over a court's oral assertions. The Court has found such a rule essential to the operation of the Court of Justice for judges often voice views and opinions which may be inconsistent with their final judgments. Hicks, 869 S.W.2d at 38. If it was permissible for the comments of a trial judge... to impeach the effect of a court's final judgment, the result would be the destruction of any certainty as to the effect of judgments and a state of chaos in judicial proceedings. Id. Thus, absent an appropriate written correction, Machniak's sentence is as stated in the written Judgment: imprisonment for a maximum of 3 years probated 3 years.