State v. Watring, 400 P.3d 1148

In Dec. 2011 Watring received suspended sentences for two third-degree felonies (0–5 years each) and a 182‑day misdemeanor, with 36 months probation and RSAT participation ordered.
In Feb. 2015 Watring pled guilty to a third-degree felony; the court imposed a suspended 0–5 year term with 3 years probation and RSAT, but did not state whether the 2015 sentence would run concurrent or consecutive to the 2011 sentences.
The court’s signed minutes for the Feb. 2, 2015 sentencing hearing left the concurrent/consecutive line blank; a second minute entry filed Feb. 4 stated “All cases and charges may run concurrent.”
On Feb. 3 Watring admitted violating 2011 probation; the court continued sentencing to review the presentence report and on Feb. 10 revoked probation and ordered the 2011 sentences concurrent with each other but consecutive to the 2015 sentence.
Watring later moved to correct his 2015 sentence, arguing the Feb. 4 minute entry establishing concurrent sentences was a valid sentence and could not be changed; the district court treated the Feb. 4 entry as a clerical error and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court lost jurisdiction to change the Feb. 4 minute entry	Watring: the Feb. 4 minute entry ordering concurrency was a valid sentence, so court lacked jurisdiction to amend it	State: the Feb. 4 entry was a clerical error and the original Feb. 2 hearing omitted the statutorily required concurrency/consecutivity determination, making the sentence illegal and correctable	Court: sentence was illegal because court omitted required finding at Feb. 2; court retained jurisdiction until the illegal sentence was corrected and thus could fix the clerical error
Whether the Feb. 4 minute entry was a clerical error under rule 30(b)	Watring: not clerical because suspension of the 2015 prison term shows the court intended concurrency	State: the entry misrecorded the court’s intent; the error was in recording, not in judicial decision-making	Court: the error was clerical—the minutes did not reflect what was intended because the court had continued sentencing; error arose in recording and was apparent from the record

State v. Young, 337 P.3d 227 (Utah 2014) (standard for reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction questions)
State v. Yazzie, 203 P.3d 984 (Utah 2009) (what constitutes an illegal sentence and that court may correct illegal sentences at any time)
State v. Thorkelson, 84 P.3d 854 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (court retains jurisdiction over an illegal sentence until it is corrected)
State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (Utah 2009) (distinguishing clerical errors from judicial errors and factors for clerical-error analysis)