Commonwealth v. Borrin
12 A.3d 466
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Jeffrey Borrin injured motorcyclists in a DUI incident in July 2005; he pleaded guilty to 20 counts in March 2006.
- At sentencing in May 2006, the judge imposed multiple concurrent and consecutive terms, with some counts running consecutively and others on probation, and credited time served.
- A handwritten sentencing order dated May 19, 2006, reflected an aggregate term of 4 years 4 months to 8 years 8 months imprisonment plus 4 years 6 months probation, allegedly endorsing a mix of concurrent/consecutive terms.
- In 2008 the Department of Corrections advised the judge that the sentencing order was incorrect regarding counts 2–18, prompting the judge to state his intent was to have those counts run consecutive to each other and to count 1.
- In June 2009 the Commonwealth petitioned to clarify and the trial judge issued a new order increasing the sentence (8 years 9 months to 18 years imprisonment, plus 5 years probation), arguing correction of a clerical error to reflect consecutive terms.
- Borrin appealed, contending the judge lacked authority to modify the sentence after the May 2006 order because there was no clear clerical error on the face of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to correct a sentencing error | Borrin: no inherent authority to increase sentence due to lack of clear clerical error. | Commonwealth: the judge could correct a clerical error to reflect the intended consecutive terms. | Trial court lacked authority; no clear clerical error on the face of the transcript. |
| Whether the error was a clear clerical error on the face of the record | Borrin: the May 2006 transcript is ambiguous; not a clear clerical error. | Commonwealth: amendments could reflect the judge's intended consecutive sentencing. | Not a clear clerical error; ambiguity controls; May 19, 2006 order governs. |
| Whether modifying the sentence after 30 days violated rules or double jeopardy | Borrin: correction after finality violates double jeopardy and public policy. | Commonwealth: inherent authority can apply to clerical corrections even after 30 days. | Double jeopardy and finality concerns reinforce reversal; no correction permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 860 A.2d 146 (Pa. Super. 2004) (inherent authority to correct only clear clerical errors)
- Commonwealth v. Kubiac, 550 A.2d 219 (Pa. Super. 1988) (clerical error correction when oral and written sentences conflict)
- Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 639 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 1994) (retroactive correction of sentence held improper when max term already served)
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 482 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1984) (omission of program as condition of parole not clearly erroneous)
- Commonwealth v. Isabell, 467 A.2d 1287 (Pa. 1983) (signed sentencing order controls over oral pronouncements not incorporated)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (inherent power to correct clear errors, not to reconsider discretion)
- Daddino, 5 F.3d 262 (7th Cir. 1993) (ambiguities resolved by written sentence when not a clear clerical error)