State v. Ricker, 400 S.W.3d 11

Appellant Neal Ricker appeals pro se from a Buchanan County Circuit Court denial of a nunc pro tunc motion to correct the written sentence and judgment for 1994 convictions of first-degree assault and armed criminal action.
The written sentence incorrectly states a § 558.019 persistent-offender finding and minimum term, though the record shows a sentence as a prior and persistent offender.
Ricker alleged the clerical error stemmed from entering § 558.019 instead of § 558.016, and that he was never charged or found as a persistent offender under § 558.019 at trial.
On February 8, 2012, the court issued a Corrected Judgment and Order denying relief, finding the record did not support nunc pro tunc relief because findings were made at trial and reflected in the ruling.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for failure to provide transcripts of the 1994 trial and sentencing, which prevented review of whether a clerical error occurred or whether the written judgment diverged from the oral pronouncement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can the clerical-error claim be reviewed without the trial transcripts?	Ricker contends there was a clerical error (§ 558.019 vs § 558.016) affecting his sentence.	Court findings and the written judgment align with a persistent-offender designation, and relief requires proper record.	Appeal is dismissed for lack of transcripts to review the issue.

State v. Johnson, 220 S.W.3d 377 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (clerical discrepancies regarding judgment can be addressed by nunc pro tunc under Rule 29; but record must be complete)
State v. Prosser, 161 S.W.3d 848 (Mo.App. E.D.2005) (appellant must provide complete record on appeal per Rule 81.12)