Crim. P. 36

History

ANNOTATION Correction of error discretionary. The lan- guage of this rule indicates that the decision to correct an error is discretionary rather than mandatory. Quintana v. People, 200 Colo. 258, 613 P.2d 1308 (1980). Judge may correct grammar and strike meaningless repetitions. A judge may correct or amend a record, to make certain perfunctory changes to correct grammar, and to strike mean- ingless repetitions. People v. Emeson, 179 Colo. 308, 500 P.2d 368 (1972). And may correct mittimus to reflect sen- tence actually imposed. Where a mittimus re- cites what purports to be the sentence imposed, but a clerical error in the mittimus quite obvi- ously does not reflect the actual sentence in- tended to be imposed by the sentencing judge, the order of the trial judge correcting the mitti- mus to reflect the sentences actually imposed by the sentencing judge is the proper procedure. People v. Mason, 188 Colo. 410, 535 P.2d 506 (1975). But cannot correct mistakes after commu- tation of sentence. Since the courts lack juris- diction to alter or amend a commuted sentence imposed by the executive, a motion under this rule to correct clerical oversights in sentencing may not be granted after commutation. People v. Quintana, 42 Colo. App. 477, 601 P.2d 637 (1979), aff’d, 200 Colo. 258, 613 P.2d 1308 (1980). Clerical error in judgment of conviction, sentence, and mittimus concerning the sen- tences imposed for sexual assault and kidnap- ping is proper grounds for remand to correct the error. People v. Turner, 730 P.2d 333 (Colo. App. 1986). Prosecutor’s request to amend restitution order did not merely correct a scrivener’s error, but affected defendant’s substantive rights by making his sentence more onerous. The prosecution erred in the amount of restitu- tion requested in its motion for restitution, de- spite having knowledge of the correct amount in the presentence investigation report. Once the final sentence was entered, the order could not be amended under § 18-1.3-603 (3)(a), and this rule cannot be used to obtain that result. People v. McLain, 2016 COA 74, 411 P.3d 1037.