Cited by

the State asserts that the district court’s accurate oral sentence controls over the sentencing order.

(concluding 12 (Minn. 2025) (concluding that appellant’s claim that his sentence was unlawful because the district court did not award 351 days of jail credit was moot because the district court had granted the jail credit request and the state did not challenge that jail-credit award).

“It is clear under both the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and persuasive caselaw that the responsibility for stating the precise terms of a sentence rests squarely with the [district] court.” (footnote omitted).

See, (holding that when an orally pronounced sentence varies from a written sentencing order, the orally pronounced sentence controls).

“When an orally pronounced sentence varies from a written sentencing order, the orally pronounced sentence controls.”

331 (Minn. App. 2002) (“[O]rally pronounced sentence controls.”).

The “oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing order.”

d 329, 332 (Minn. App. 2002).

While the departure report states that the basis for the departure was “the victim was the aggressor,” the oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing order, and during the sentencing 11 hearing, the district court stated only that D.B.

In State v. Staloch, we concluded that “the terms of [the] appellant’s oral sentence [took] precedence over contrary terms in his written sentence[.]”

(stating that although an orally pronounced sentence controls over a written warrant of commitment, a reviewing court may look to the warrant of commitment if an “orally pronounced sentence is ambiguous”).

(holding that when a district court’s orally pronounced sentence differs from the warrant of commitment, the oral pronouncement controls).

(stating that, when a district court’s oral pronouncement conflicts with the warrant of commitment, the oral pronouncement controls).

Finally, “[w]hen an orally pronounced sentence varies from a written sen tencing order, the orally pronounced sentence controls.”

State v. Staloch , d 329, 331 (Minn. App. 2002).

While the district court’s orally pronounced sentence prevails over an inconsistent record due to clerical error, appellate courts look to the offi cial judgment of conviction in the district court file “as conclu sive evidence of whether an o ffense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted); (concluding that the district court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over a writte n sentencing order if the two conflict).

“‘[A]n orally pronounced sentence controls over a [written] judgment and commitmen t order when the two conflict.’” (quoting United States v. Villano , 816 F.2d 1448, 1450 (10th Cir. 1987)).

See State v. Staloch , (“When an orally pronounced sentence varies from a written sentencing order, the orally pronounced sentence controls.”).

(“[A]n orally pronounced sentence controls over a judgment and commitment order when the two conflict.”).

“[A]n orally pr onounced sentence contro ls over a [written] judgment and commitment orde r when the two conflict.” State v. Staloch , d 329, 331 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted).

the judgment and commitment order is 12 evidence which may be used to determine the intended sentence.” (quotation omitted).

“‘[A]n orally pronounced sentence controls over a [written] judgment and commitment order when the two conflict.’” (quoting United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1450 (10th Cir. 1987)).

that “[w]hen an orally pronounced sentence varies from a written sentencing order, the orally pronounced sentence controls.” Therefore, despite the clerical mistakes in the warrant of commitment, the district court only entered judgment of conviction on one of the two guilty verdicts.