Aminadab Johnson v. State of Missouri, 446 S.W.3d 274

Johnson, a persistent offender, pled guilty to 17 counts: 10 misdemeanors and 7 felonies.
Oral sentence: six months for each misdemeanor; for felonies, five or twelve years for each count except Count II.
As to Count II, the court stated a six-month sentence for “Count II, the misdemeanor theft.”
Written judgment erroneously stated Count II was a twelve-year class C felony sentence.
Johnson and the State moved for post-conviction relief to reflect the oral six-month sentence on Count II.
The motion court denied relief; on appeal, the court held the remedy requires resentencing on Count II.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the written Count II sentence reflect the oral pronouncement?	Johnson: written sentence misstates Count II; should reflect six months.	State: discrepancy requires correction but remedy debated (nunc pro tunc vs resentencing).	Remand for resentencing on Count II
Is a nunc pro tunc correction proper where the oral pronouncement is ambiguous?	Johnson contends nunc pro tunc could fix the record to reflect the oral sentence.	State: nunc pro tunc not appropriate where the oral pronouncement is ambiguous and record unclear.	Nunc pro tunc not proper; remand for resentencing on Count II

Rupert v. State, 250 S.W.3d 442 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (written sentence should reflect unambiguous oral pronouncement)
State v. Carroll, 207 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (oral pronouncement controls when unambiguous)
Hall v. State, 190 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (oral sentence controls over written sentence when unambiguous)
Johnson v. State, 938 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. banc 1997) (oral sentence controls when unambiguous; exceptions noted)
Pettis v. State, 212 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (remand for resentencing when based on mistaken belief)
State ex rel. Poucher v. Vincent, 258 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc 2008) (nunc pro tunc cannot change a judgment actually entered)
State v. Lazar, 182 S.W.3d 578 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (clerical errors corrected in written judgment via proper mechanism)
State v. Harvey, 348 S.W.3d 169 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (oral sentence controls when unambiguous; example of correction via record)
State v. Jackson, 158 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (oral sentence controls over written sentence when unambiguous)
Thomas v. Dormire, 940 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (record may refute presumption of court understanding; misapprehension recognized)
Bommarito, 856 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (court could be found to rely on incorrect statements during sentencing)