Wyo. R. Crim. P. 36 (2026)

Rule 36. Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.

Compare. — Rule 36, Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. court’s oral pronouncement of defendant’s sen- Erroneous description of the crime for tence, a “term of natural life, according to law,” which defendant was convicted. — Where prevailed over his written sentence from the the judge misspoke during the sentencing pro- outset, and the nunc pro tunc judgment simply ceeding, calling defendant’s conviction by the conformed defendant’s written sentence to the jury a conviction for attempted aggravated rob- oral pronouncement. Brown v. State, 2021 WY bery rather than for aggravated robbery, the 79, 489 P.3d 1162, 2021 Wyo. LEXIS 87 (Wyo. judge’s use of the word “attempted” was not the 2021). deliberate result of judicial reasoning and de- Applicability. — Action to which defendant objected, namely the imposition of consecutive termination but was, instead, a clerical error terms rather than concurrent terms of incar- which could be corrected by virtue of W.R.Cr.P. ceration, was a result of judicial, not clerical, 36 to accurately reflect the offense of which action, and the asserted “mistake” was not a defendant was convicted. Kearns v. State, 2002 mistake at all, but the product of a written and WY 97, 48 P.3d 1090, 2002 Wyo. LEXIS 103 signed plea agreement, which defendant ap- (Wyo. 2002). proved; therefore, W.R.Cr.P. 36 provided no Nunc pro tunc judgment proper. — Dis- relief. Beck v. State, 2005 WY 56, 110 P.3d 898, trict court did not err when it denied defen- 2005 Wyo. LEXIS 64 (Wyo. 2005). dant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and Written judgment and sentence does not instead issued the nunc pro tunc judgment to control over an oral sentence at variance correct the inaccuracy in his written sentence with it. Where the transcript of the oral sen- without notice or a hearing because there being tence and judgment and the mittimus are un- no change in his sentence, defendant had no ambiguous and plain in directing a consecutive, constitutional right to a sentencing hearing. not concurrent, sentence, and the written judg- Brown v. State, 2021 WY 79, 489 P.3d 1162, ment and sentence contains an oversight and 2021 Wyo. LEXIS 87 (Wyo. 2021). omission in this respect, it may be properly Nunc pro tunc judgment correcting the writ- corrected by the trial court in a nunc pro tunc ten sentence to conform it to the oral pro- judgment and sentence. Lane v. State, 663 P.2d nouncement was proper because the district 175, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 318 (Wyo. 1983).