Commonwealth v. Borrin
622 Pa. 422
| Pa. | 2013Background
- On July 24, 2005 Jeffrey Michael Borrin drove into a group of motorcycles, killing one person and seriously injuring others; he later pleaded guilty to 20 counts (including homicide by vehicle while DUI and multiple aggravated-assault and motor-vehicle offenses).
- On May 18, 2006 the trial court pronounced sentence orally and entered a signed written sentencing order; that written order described some probationary terms as “consecutive to each other and to Count 1” but described most incarceration terms as “consecutive to Count 1” (and did not expressly state they were consecutive to each other).
- No post-sentence motion or timely appeal was filed from the May 18, 2006 order; Borrin began serving his sentence in June 2006.
- In 2008 the trial judge wrote the DOC saying his intent had been that all counts run consecutively to each other; in May 2009 the Commonwealth petitioned to clarify after the DOC calculated a shorter aggregate term.
- On June 12, 2009 the trial court issued an order restating that all non-merged counts ran consecutively to Count 1 and to each other; Borrin appealed and the Superior Court reversed, holding the trial court lacked power to modify the 2006 order outside the 30-day window and that the 2006 order was not clearly erroneous on its face.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, holding the June 12, 2009 order modified (not merely clarified) the May 18, 2006 order and that no patent and obvious clerical error in the written order existed that the trial court could correct under its inherent powers.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Borrin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could issue the June 12, 2009 order as a timely clarification (i.e., not a modification) of the May 18, 2006 sentence | The June 2009 order merely clarified the trial court’s original intent that all counts run consecutively; clarification may be made at any time | The May 18, 2006 written order, read as a whole, already limited incarceration sentences to be consecutive only to Count 1 and thus the June 2009 order altered the sentence | Held: The June 2009 order modified the 2006 order rather than merely clarifying it; written sentencing order controls and the trial court lacked statutory authority to modify it after the 30-day window |
| Whether the trial court could rely on its post-sentencing oral statements and later letters to demonstrate its original intent | Post-sentencing statements (2008 letter, 2009 remarks) showed the judge intended full consecutive terms and could be used to justify correction | Borrin argued the written order controls and was not erroneous | Held: The court rejected reliance on after‑the‑fact statements; the signed written order controls over subsequent judicial comments for defining the sentence imposed |
| Whether the June 12, 2009 order could be upheld as a correction of a clerical/patent and obvious error under the trial court’s inherent power | The written order conflicted with what the judge orally announced and the clerk’s disposition form introduced errors; the court may correct clerical mistakes anytime to make records conform to the truth | Borrin argued the written order was coherent and unambiguous so no patent clerical error existed to correct | Held: To invoke inherent-correction power the error must be patent and obvious; here the written order’s wording was susceptible to a competing, reasonable interpretation (ambiguity existed), so no patent clerical error was shown and correction was unlawful |
| Whether ambiguity in the sentencing record should be construed in favor of the defendant (rule of lenity / timely challenge) | Commonwealth urged correction so DOC’s computation matched judge’s understanding; timeliness not addressed as dispositive | Borrin emphasized the Commonwealth’s failure to seek timely clarification and argued ambiguity favors the defendant | Held: The majority reads the written order strictly, treating the ambiguity as precluding a finding of patent error; concurrence endorsed deference to timely challenges and lenity in close cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 593 Pa. 601, 933 A.2d 57 (2007) (describing limits on a trial court’s inherent power to correct only patent and obvious sentencing errors and distinguishing correction from reconsideration of discretionary sentencing decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Klein, 566 Pa. 396, 781 A.2d 1133 (2001) (defining correctable errors as "patent and obvious mistakes")
- Commonwealth v. Isabell, 503 Pa. 2, 467 A.2d 1287 (1983) (signed written sentencing order controls over oral statements not incorporated into the judgment of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Rusic, 229 Pa. 587, 79 A. 140 (1911) (recognizing trial court authority to amend its record to conform to the truth)
- Smaltz v. Hancock, 118 Pa. 550, 12 A. 464 (1888) (acknowledging a trial court’s power to amend recorded verdicts and judgments to reflect what actually occurred)