Matlock v. State
2017 Ark. 175
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Michael Ray Matlock pled guilty on January 6, 2015 to second-degree sexual assault and sexual indecency with a child and received an aggregate 180-month sentence.
- The original judgment (Jan. 26, 2015) awarded 181 days of jail-time credit.
- Matlock filed a pro se motion (May 16, 2016) seeking amended sentencing credit, claiming 547 days of pretrial detention (arrest July 9, 2013 to Jan. 6, 2015).
- Trial court entered an amended order (June 8, 2016) stating the sentence was to run nunc pro tunc to 7/9/13 but did not specify days; the court later acknowledged entitlement to 546 days in a letter to Matlock.
- While the appeal was pending, the trial court entered a second amended order (Nov. 30, 2016) explicitly awarding 556 days of jail-time credit; the State did not contest entitlement to the credit and argued the appeal was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matlock is entitled to additional jail-time credit and how many days | Matlock claimed entitlement to 547 days of pretrial credit | State conceded he was entitled to credit and argued the amended order moots the appeal | Appeal dismissed as moot because the second amended order granted the relief sought |
| Whether trial court had authority to correct sentencing record after appeal lodged | Matlock sought correction nunc pro tunc to reflect full pretrial credit | State relied on trial court’s corrective power and argued the entered order resolves the issue | Court held trial court may correct clerical errors nunc pro tunc to make the record speak the truth |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rowe, 374 Ark. 19 (clarifies that clerical errors may be corrected nunc pro tunc to reflect the court's intent)
- Cason v. State, 2016 Ark. 387 (trial court may correct clerical mistakes under Rule 60(b); omission of intended jail-time credit may be corrected)
- Sherman v. State, 326 Ark. 153 (once an appeal is lodged, trial court retains jurisdiction only to correct the judgment to speak the truth)
- Wigley v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 379 (an issue is moot when any further judgment would have no practical effect)