State v. Peterson, 886 N.W.2d 71

Joshua Peterson pled guilty to burglary; plea colloquy and charging documents showed he was pleading to class B burglary under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-02(2)(b) (aggravating conduct while in immediate flight).
The district court sentenced Peterson to 10 years with 5 years suspended and entered a criminal judgment listing only the general burglary statute (12.1-22-02) and "Felony B."
The State moved to correct the judgment to expressly reflect § 12.1-22-02(2)(b) so the Department of Corrections would apply the 85% service requirement of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1.
The district court held a hearing, found the omission was clerical, and entered an amended judgment stating the 85% rule applied (though it did not change the statute line to show the exact subsection).
Peterson appealed, arguing the amendment increased his sentence in violation of N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 and the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amending the judgment to reflect applicability of the 85% rule increased Peterson's sentence	State: Amendment corrects a clerical omission and reflects the plea and charging documents showing § 12.1-22-02(2)(b) applies	Peterson: Adding the 85% release restriction is a new condition not in the original judgment and effectively increases punishment (Rule 35 and double jeopardy violation)	Court: No increase. The 85% requirement was a statutory condition that automatically applied to the conviction; amendment did not increase sentence
Whether the correction was authorized under appropriate rules (Rule 35 vs Rule 36)	State: Sought correction under Rule 35(a)(2) as clerical/technical error but the change is proper	Peterson: Original judgment contained no error; Rule 35 cannot be used to increase sentence	Court: Amendment was properly characterized as a clerical correction correctable under N.D.R.Crim.P. 36 (even if court referenced Rule 35), not a substantive change

State v. Kaseman, 756 N.W.2d 923 (N.D. 2008) (district court may not later increase a sentence)
United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1931) (increasing penalty after imposition implicates double jeopardy)
State v. Raulston, 707 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 2005) (85% statute is a parole condition and court need not affirmatively inform defendant)
State v. Bryan, 316 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 1982) (post-sentence modification that effectively increases punishment is impermissible)
Peltier v. State, 841 N.W.2d 236 (N.D. 2013) (judgment listing incorrect statutory subsection may be corrected as clerical under Rule 36)
United States v. Barnes, 313 F.2d 325 (6th Cir. 1963) (clerical misdesignation of statutory subsection in judgment correctable under Rule 36)