Court Opinion

ID: 9951010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 15:18:11.606702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:54.340655
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 8, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-0953-MR

MARVIN LEE GOODMAN                                                   APPELLANT

              APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.         HONORABLE CHARLES L. CUNNINGHAM, JR., JUDGE
                   ACTION NO. 14-CR-002269-001

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, JONES, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Marvin Lee Goodman, pro se, brings this appeal from a June

2, 2022, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion to correct

judgment. We affirm.

             Appellant was indicted in 2014 by the Jefferson County Grand Jury

upon the offense of first-degree robbery. On April 5, 2016, appellant and the

Commonwealth reached a plea agreement. Thereunder, appellant agreed to enter a
guilty plea to first-degree robbery, and the Commonwealth would recommend a

sentence of fifteen-years’ imprisonment.

             By Judgment of Conviction and Sentence entered April 20, 2016,

(Judgment), the circuit court sentenced appellant to ten-years’ imprisonment upon

the offense of first-degree robbery. The ten-year sentence was clearly a clerical

error. Subsequently, on May 4, 2016, the court amended its Judgment by

rendering an Amended Judgment of Conviction of Sentence (Amended Judgment).

Therein, the circuit court sentenced appellant to fifteen-years’ imprisonment upon

the offense of first-degree robbery in accordance with his guilty plea and plea

agreement.

             Some six years later, on May 20, 2022, appellant filed a motion to

correct his sentence of imprisonment. Appellant maintains his sentence of

imprisonment was ten years rather than fifteen years. Appellant attached two

judgments to his motion. The first attached judgment is titled Amended Judgment

of Conviction and Sentence and bears an April 20, 2016, entry date. In this first

judgment, appellant is sentenced to ten-years’ imprisonment. The second attached

judgment is titled Judgment of Conviction and Sentence and bears a May 4, 2016,

entry date. In its second judgment, appellant is sentenced to fifteen-years’

imprisonment.

                                         -2-
             By order entered June 2, 2022, the circuit court denied appellant’s

motion to correct his sentence of imprisonment. The circuit court initially noted

that the April 20, 2016, Judgment mistakenly sentenced appellant to ten-years’

imprisonment. The circuit court corrected this clerical error in the May 4, 2016,

Amended Judgment by sentencing appellant to fifteen-years’ imprisonment. The

court explained that the plea agreement and the court’s notes both indicated that

the court had intended to sentence appellant to fifteen years rather than ten years’

imprisonment. The court also addressed the apparent attempt to mislead the court

by altering the record:

             The confusion arises because someone has taken the
             second pages of these Judgments [April 20, 2016,
             Judgment, and May 4, 2016, Amended Judgment] and
             swapped them; making it appear the sentence was
             reduced by the amended rather than corrected. One
             could wonder if it was Mr. Goodman who did the
             swapping, but the Court will presume this mistake was
             caused by someone else playing a cruel joke on Mr.
             Goodman.

Order denying motion to correct judgment at 1. Upon denying appellant’s motion

to correct his sentence of imprisonment, this appeal follows.

             Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is that the circuit court erroneously

denied the motion to correct his sentence of imprisonment. Specifically, appellant

argues that “[i]t is clear that the erroneous errors made by the trial court clearly

violate CR [Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure] 59.05 as the amended sentence of

                                          -3-
fifteen (15) years was entered into the court well after the required ten (10) day

deadline under the statute.” Appellant’s Brief at 3.

             Under CR 59.05, “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment, or to

vacate a judgment and enter a new one, shall be served not later than 10 days after

entry of the final judgment.” So, a party must serve a CR 59.05 motion within ten

days of the final judgment. Based upon its plain language, we do not believe that

CR 59.05 is applicable herein; instead, Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure

(RCr) 10.10 is dispositive.

             Under RCr 10.10, a clerical error in a judgment “may be corrected by

the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party.” Clerical

mistakes are “errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the exercise

of the judicial function.” Machniak v. Commonwealth, 351 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Ky.

2011) (quoting Buchanan v. West Ky. Coal Co., 291 S.W. 32, 35 (Ky. 1927)).

And, in differentiating between judicial and clerical errors, the key inquiry is

“‘whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination.’”

Machniak, 351 S.W.3d at 652 (quoting Buchanan, 291 S.W. at 35).

             Herein, the circuit court indicated that it committed a mistake by

sentencing appellant to ten-years’ imprisonment in the April 20, 2016, Judgment.

The circuit court pointed out that both the plea agreement and the court’s notes

indicated that the court had intended to sentence appellant to fifteen years. Thus,

                                          -4-
the mistake was not the deliberate result of judicial reasoning but rather constituted

a clerical error. Per RCr 10.10, the circuit court properly corrected the clerical

error in the May 4, 2016, Amended Judgment by correctly sentencing appellant to

fifteen-years’ imprisonment. Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court

properly denied appellant’s motion to correct his sentence of imprisonment.

             For the foregoing reasons, the June 2, 2022, order of the Jefferson

Circuit Court is affirmed.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Marvin Lee Goodman, Pro Se                Daniel J. Cameron
 Burgin, Kentucky                          Attorney General
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                           Joseph A. Beckett
                                           Assistant Attorney General
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                          -5-