Heinemann v. State, 413 P.3d 644

In 1998 Heinemann was convicted in two cases and the court ordered reimbursement of public defender fees in the written judgments; the judgments also referenced payment “within said Defendant’s probationary period.”
At sentencing the court orally required reimbursement but stated Heinemann had no present ability to pay and any obligation rested on possible future ability.
Heinemann received life without parole in one case, so the written references to a probationary period were inconsistent with the sentence and the court’s oral pronouncement.
In 2017 the Wyoming Department of Corrections filed a motion for an order nunc pro tunc to remove references to a probationary period so DOC could collect fees from Heinemann’s prison wages; the court granted the motion.
Heinemann appealed, arguing DOC lacked standing, his due process rights were violated by lack of notice, the DOC should have used Wyo. Stat. § 7-6-108, and other procedural defenses including res judicata.
The court treated the motion as correction of a clerical error under W.R.Cr.P. 36 and inherent authority, not a substantive change, and affirmed the nunc pro tunc order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC had standing to seek nunc pro tunc correction	DOC was not a party and thus lacked standing/jurisdiction	Court can correct clerical errors at any time under W.R.Cr.P. 36 and inherent power, so standing irrelevant	DOC’s lack of party status did not defeat court’s authority; order valid
Whether due process was violated by lack of notice	Heinemann received no notice of the motion, so his due process rights were violated	Rule 36 allows correction of clerical errors “after such notice, if any, as the court orders”; no notice is permissible for clerical corrections	No due process violation; court properly corrected clerical error without notice
Whether DOC was required to pursue reimbursement under § 7-6-108	Because there was no valid court order, DOC had to sue under § 7-6-108	The original judgments were valid and the nunc pro tunc corrected a clerical mistake, so § 7-6-108 was not required	DOC need not use § 7-6-108; nunc pro tunc clarified valid judgments
Whether nunc pro tunc impermissibly changed substantive rights (res judicata/State invited error)	Nunc pro tunc changed requirements and conflicted with W.S. § 7-6-106(c); State invited error; res judicata bars relief	Nunc pro tunc merely removed an erroneous reference to a probationary period and reflected the court’s oral pronouncement; arguments unsupported	Nunc pro tunc was a permissible correction; remaining claims not considered for lack of cogent argument

Johnson v. State, 914 P.2d 810 (Wyo.) (nunc pro tunc corrects inaccuracies but cannot effect substantive change)
Christensen v. State, 854 P.2d 675 (Wyo.) (clarifies scope of nunc pro tunc relief)
Martinez v. City of Cheyenne, 791 P.2d 949 (Wyo.) (nunc pro tunc makes record speak the truth)
Weidt v. State, 312 P.3d 1035 (Wyo. 2013) (standard of review for nunc pro tunc is de novo)
Eddy v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A.-Lander, 713 P.2d 228 (Wyo.) (limits on using nunc pro tunc to alter substantive rights)
Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman, 346 P.3d 880 (Wyo.) (trial courts’ inherent authority to interpret and clarify judgments)
Dunmire v. Powell Family of Yakima, LLC, 181 P.3d 920 (Wyo.) (Rule-based correction of clerical mistakes may not require notice)
Nixon v. State, 4 P.3d 864 (Wyo.) (statute does not require present ability to pay; future ability suffices)
Collier v. State, 920 P.2d 265 (Wyo.) (appellate review limits where issues not raised below)
Heinemann v. State, 12 P.3d 692 (Wyo.) (prior direct appeal affirming convictions)