Rich v. United States., 10106.

Decision Date11 May 1976
Docket NumberNo. 10106.,10106.
Citation357 A.2d 421
PartiesWilliam P. RICH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Edward R. Shannon, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, was on the brief for appellant.

Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, Garey G. Stark and Mark H. Tuohey III, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee.

Before FICKLING, KERN and NEBEKER, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from two amended Judgment and Commitment Orders entered pursuant to a plea of guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle1 and false pretenses.2 The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the court below erred by entering the written amendments to the original Judgment and Commitment Orders. We affirm.

At the sentencing proceeding held on September 26, 1975, the presiding judge made the following oral pronouncement:

Well, Mr. Rich, on these two offenses . . . the Court is going to sentence you, and they will be concurrent sentences, for an indeterminate time under the Youth Corrections Act, 5010(A), to such time as they determine you would be eligible for parole.

* * * * * *

I made it indeterminate, rather than straight jacket then [sic] because if they feel he does progress, as he evidently seems to be progressing in Southern Maryland, then they can make the determination as to when he should be released.

On the same day, the sentencing judge executed two Judgment and Commitment Orders which provided for "commitment under 5010(A) of Federal Youth Corrections Act."3 Later on the same day, the judge amended the orders to read "commitment under 5010(B) of Federal Youth Corrections Act."4 This change was made by the judge sua sponte, and neither appellant nor his counsel was present at the time of the correction.

Appellant contends that the original, unamended orders of judgment and commitment correctly reflected the oral pronouncement of the sentencing judge that appellant would be given probation under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(a). Appellant contends that it was error for the sentencing judge to increase the sentence from a 5010(a) to a 5010(b) commitment by its sua sponte, ex parte amendment.

It is well established that a written Judgment and Commitment Order must conform to the terms of sentence pronounced in open court since the latter constitutes the actual judgment of the court. Rakes v. United States, 309 F.2d 686, 688 (4th Cir. 1962); Kennedy v. Reid, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 403, 249 F.2d 492,495 (1957).

The sentence pronounced in open court must be construed as a whole to determine the court's intention. Kennedy v. Reid, supra at 403, 249 F.2d at 495; accord, Bellam v. State, 233 Md. 368, 196 A.2d 891 (1964); Commonwealth v. Myers, 190 Pa.Super. 461, 154 A.2d 297 (1959). In the instant case, the record clearly reveals the intention of the sentencing judge to incarcerate, despite the court's bare mistaken reference to 5010 (a). The judge declared that the indeterminate concurrent sentences run until such time "as they determine you would be eligible for parole."

The subsequent corrective actions of the judge to conform the written orders to the pronounced sentence were proper. Super.Ct.Cr.R. 36 provides in pertinent part:

Clerical mistakes and errors in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record . . . which arise from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. . . .

Quite apart from the above applicable rule, the court's actions were justified based on its inherent power to correct its record so as to reflect the truth and insure that justice be served. Fisher v. Small, D.C.Mun.App., 166 A.2d 744, 746 (1960); Kennedy v. Reid, supra at 404, 249 F.2d at 496; Downey v. United States, 67 App. D.C. 192, 199, 91 F.2d 223, 230 (1937).

For the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • NEWTON v. U.S.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 7 Julio 1992
    ...a trial court has "inherent power to correct its record so as to reflect the truth and insure that justice be served." Rich v. United States, 357 A.2d 421, 423 (D.C. 1976).6 In Lindsay v. United States, 520 A.2d 1059 (D.C. 1987), we affirmed the trial court's action reinstating a conviction......
  • Francis v. US, 96-CF-442.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 6 Agosto 1998
    ...actions were justified based on its inherent power to correct its record so as to reflect the truth and insure that justice be served." 357 A.2d at 423. Shortly after deciding Rich, we revisited the issue of resentencing in Green, supra, 363 A.2d 979. In that case, within an hour after sent......
  • Davis v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 29 Enero 1979
    ...open court constitutes the actual judgment of the court. Valentine v. United States, D.C. App., 394 A.2d 1374 (1978); Rich v. United States, D.C.App., 357 A.2d 421 (1976). When the appellant came before the court for sentencing on September 12, 1977, the court imposed a twenty-to-sixty-mont......
  • Herring v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 14 Septiembre 2017
    ...least ambiguous, for any reasonable person would have concluded that the judge did not mean to say what he said."); Rich v. United States , 357 A.2d 421, 423 (D.C. 1976) ("The sentence pronounced in open court must be construed as a whole to determine the court's intention."). This is to sa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT