guise of correcting clerical error in California

1989Judgments, § 202.) Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion’ is not permitted.” (In re Candelario, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 705 , quoting In re Wimbs (1966) 65 Cal.2d 490, 498 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 222 , 421 P.2d 70 ].) The court concluded the error corrected was a judicial rather than a clerical error because the trial court had discretion to omit the prior conviction as an act of leniency.

1989Judgments, § 202.) Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion’ is not permitted.” (In re Candelario, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 705 , quoting In re Wimbs (1966) 65 Cal.2d 490, 498 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 222 , 421 P.2d 70 ].) The court concluded the error corrected was a judicial rather than a clerical error because the trial court had discretion to omit the prior conviction as an act of leniency.

2025The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is ‘whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.’ [Citation.] Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion’ is not permitted.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 .) “‘The distinction between a clerical error and a judicial error does not depend so much on the person making it as it does on whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination. [Citations.]’ (Estate of Doane (19

2024The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is ‘whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.’ [Citation.] Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion’ is not permitted. [Citation.] [¶] An amendment that substantially modifies the original judgment or materially alters the rights of the parties, may not be made by the court under its authority to correct clerical error, therefore, unless the record clearly demonstrates that the error was not the resul

2022We grant Acuna’s request to take judicial notice of the appellate record and court file in Case No. D078365 when considering the appeal in Case No. D078885. 36 decree.” (See, e.g., Hamilton v. Laine (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 885, 890 [“nunc pro tunc orders may not be made to ‘make the judgment express anything not embraced in the court’s decision, even though the proposed amendment contains matters which ought to have been so pronounced’ ”]; In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 [“Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judici

2015It may not be used as a vehicle to review an order for legal or judicial error by ‘correcting’ the order in order to enter a new one.” (Hamilton v. Laine (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 885, 891 .) “The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is ‘whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.’ [Citation.] Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion’ is not permitted.” (In re Candelario, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 705 ; Estate of Eckstrom (1960) 54 Cal.2d 540, 545 [“c

2023At that time, following an off-the-record conference, the court stated it was finding “nunc pro tunc that on June 28th, 2017, [Estrada] pleaded to the felony but was not convicted.” It has long been recognized, however, “ ‘[t]he function of a nunc pro tunc order is merely to correct the record of the judgment and not to alter the judgment actually rendered.’ ” (Estate of Eckstrom (1960) 54 Cal.2d 540, 544 .) “A court can always correct a clerical, as distinguished from a judicial error which appears on the face of a decree by a nunc pro tunc order. [Citations.] It cannot, however, change an or

2020But the court’s nunc pro tunc order did not amend the judgment; it corrected the record of the judgment so it reflected the true facts of the judgment originally rendered. “ ‘The function of a nunc pro tunc order is merely to correct the record of the judgment and not to alter the judgment actually rendered—not to make an order now for then, but to enter now for then an order previously made.’ ” (Estate of Eckstrom (1960) 54 Cal.2d 540, 544 , italics omitted; In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 [court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records but may not, “under the gu

2025The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is ‘whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.’ [Citation.] Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion’ is not permitted.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 .) “‘The distinction between a clerical error and a judicial error does not depend so much on the person making it as it does on whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination. [Citations.]’ (Estate of Doane (19

1989(Estate of Doane (1964) 62 Cal.2d 68, 71 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 396 P.2d 581 ].) The court’s inherent power to correct clerical errors includes errors made in the entry of the judgment or due to inadvertence of the court.

2026Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 117 (Tokio Marine) [“test which distinguishes clerical error from possible judicial error is simply whether the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently (which is clerical error) versus advertently (which might be judicial error, but is not clerical error)”].) Whether to grant a motion under section 473(d) “is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court’s order will not be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. [Citation.] Whether the error was clerical in nature

2026Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 117 (Tokio Marine) [“test which distinguishes clerical error from possible judicial error is simply whether the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently (which is clerical error) versus advertently (which might be judicial error, but is not clerical error)”].) Whether to grant a motion under section 473(d) “is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court’s order will not be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. [Citation.] Whether the error was clerical in nature

2024(See People v. Delong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 [subsequent acts or events moot an appeal where a reversal would be without practical effect].) 5 (Candelario, at p. 705.) “The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is ‘whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.’ [Citation.] Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion’ is not permitted.” (Ibid.) “An amendment that substantially modifies the original judgment or materially alters the rights of

2023The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is ‘whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.’ ” (Candelario, at p. 705.) “An amendment that substantially modifies the original judgment or materially alters the rights of the parties, may not be made by the court under its authority to correct clerical error, therefore, unless the record clearly demonstrates that the error was not the result of the exercise of judicial discretion.” (Ibid.) “Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to ‘revise its deliberate

2014(In re Wimbs (1966) 65 Cal.2d 490, 498 .) [¶] An amendment that substantially modifies the original judgment or materially alters the rights of the parties, may not be made by the court under its authority to correct clerical error, therefore, unless the record clearly demonstrates that the error was not the result of the exercise of judicial discretion.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 ; see People v. Nesbitt (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 227, 233 .) Thus, the abstract of judgment failed to accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment.

1981The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is `whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.' (46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, § 202.) Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to `revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion' is not permitted. ( In re Wimbs (1966) 65 Cal.2d 490, 498 ....) "An amendment that substantially modifies the original judgment or materially alters the rights of the parties, may not be made by the court under its authority to correct clerical error, therefore, unless the record