Cited by

“A discrepancy between a transcript and a minute entry may be resolved by reference to the transcript.” ¶ 16 n.4 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 38 (2013)).

¶ 38 (2013) (holding that the oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the sentencing order).

¶ 39 (2013) (explaining that the transcript controls over the minute entry when resolving a discrepancy).

¶ 38 (2013) (explaining the discrepancy between oral pronouncement of sentence and written minute entry is generally controlled by oral 4 STATE v. NISHITE-CALARA Decision of the Court pronouncement and reviewing court wil

¶ 38 (2013) (holding that an oral pronouncement of a sentence in open court controls over a written minute entry).

(when oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with written minute entry, oral pronouncement controls), with Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc., (“Where there is a conflict between a minute entry and the judgment, the terms of the judgment will control.”).

In sum, jurors had ample evidence from which to conclude that Rodriguez “considered his act [before shooting at Detective S.] and did not merely react to an instant quarrel or in the heat of passion.” ¶ 14 (2013).

P. 32.4(b)(3)(C); ¶ 10 (2013) (stating that, if a defendant pleads guilty to capital and non-capital crimes in the same case, this Court will review the validity of the non-capital guilty plea on direct appeal).

When a court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence is inconsistent with its written ruling, the 4 STATE v. LITTON Decision of the Court “[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls.” ¶ 38 (2013) (citation omitted).

ourt stated that a fine of $150,000 was available for the aggravated assault offense, but the judgment of guilt and sentence reflects the fine as $1,000.4 “When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” ¶ 38 (2013).

“When a 3 STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” ¶ 38 (2013) (cleaned up).

¶ 12 (2013) (“Before accepting a plea, a court must establish a factual basis for each element of the crime.”).

“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” ¶ 38 (2013).

When there is a discrepancy between the reporter’s transcript and the minute entry, “the circumstances of the particular case determine which shall govern.” (citations omitted); ¶ 38 (2013) (noting that remand is unnecessary to resolve apparent conflict between a court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the resulting written minute entry when the discrepancy can be clearly resolved by looking at the record) ().

“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” ¶ 38 (2013) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

Moreover, when the discrepancy “can be clearly resolved by looking at the record,” we may “order the minute entry corrected if the record clearly identifies the intended sentence.” ¶ 38 (2013).

¶ 12 (2013) (“Before accepting a plea, a court must establish a factual basis for each element of the crime.”); Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 38 (2013) (“This Court can order the minute entry corrected if the record clearly identifies the intended sentence.”).

“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” ¶ 38 (2013) (alteration in original) ().

“Although highly misleading statements might sometimes taint a trial, ‘cautionary instructions by the court generally cure any possible prejudice’ from statements by counsel because juries are presumed to follow the trial court’s instructions.” ¶ 24 (2013) ( ¶ 24 (2011)).

“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” ¶ 38 (2013) ().