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

Heading: The Error Is Clear from the Record

Text: ¶ 29 The error in the amount of restitution the district court originally ordered is clear from the record. To ascertain the clerical nature of the mistake, this Court will look to the record to harmonize the intent of the court with the written judgment. Lorrah, 761 P.2d at 1389. An error is clerical when it is a mistake or omission mechanical in nature which is apparent on the record Stanger, 669 P.2d at 1206 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 30 Mr. Rodrigues argues that the error is not apparent on the record, and therefore rule 30(b) was an improper vehicle for amending the judgment. We disagree and find that the error in this case is apparent based on a review of the record prior to judgment. ¶ 31 The plea agreement states that restitution will be paid in the amount of the total amount of child support arrears owed for support of [Mr. Rodrigues's] children on both counts from May 1999 through the date of sentencing. It further states that the restitution judgment shall accrue interest as set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 77-38a-401(4) (2001). The plea agreement also provides the amount of support Mr. Rodrigues agreed to pay, per month, for each ex-wife: $289 to Ms. Falsone and $328 to Ms. Rodrigues. Therefore, the basic formula to determine the correct amount of restitution can be found within the plea agreement. ¶ 32 Additionally, the PSR provides accurate totals of restitution owed from May 1999 up until February 2, 2007, one month before Mr. Rodrigues's sentencing. [5] The PSR indicates that as of February 2, 2007, Mr. Rodrigues owed Ms. Rodrigues $34,317.82 in restitution. Thus clearly the $24,078.76 requested by the State at the sentencing hearing as restitution for Ms. Rodrigues was in error. ¶ 33 Based on a review of the plea agreement, the PSR, and the previously determined intent of the court to order restitution in conformity with the plea agreement, we find that the error is clear from the record. ¶ 34 In conclusion, the original order of restitution as recorded does not accurately reflect what was intended by the court or expected by the parties. Furthermore, the error in this case was not the deliberate result of the exercise of judicial reasoning and determination. Rather, it was an error of computation, unintentionally initiated by the State. Finally, the clerical mistake in the calculation of restitution is clear from the record. We therefore hold that the error in question was merely clerical under rule 30(b), and the district court had jurisdiction to amend the order of restitution to reflect what was intended.