Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cr-00626-MAG

Document 12

Filed 06/29/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DIANA WEISS (SBN 121150) Attorney At Law 1563 Solano Avenue Suite 223 Berkeley, CA 94707 [email protected] Telephone: (510) 847-1012 Facsimile: (510) 525-1321 Attorney for Defendant WILLIAM PALACE III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 INTRODUCTION On June 20, 2008, defendant William Palace III was sentenced to 3 years probation with the condition that he serve 144 hours in custody of the B.O.P. However, both the minutes and the Judgement and Commitment Order erroneously state that defendant Palace shall serve "160 hours in custody." This Motion requests that this Court file an amended Judgement and Commitment Order to accurately reflect the sentence of 144 hours in B.O.P custody that was imposed by this Court Vs. WILLIAM PALACE III Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff ) USDC Case No:07-626NJV ) ) ) MOTION TO CORRECT ERROR ) PURSUANT TO RULE 35(a) ) ) ) ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:07-cr-00626-MAG

Document 12

Filed 06/29/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 28, 2007, Defendant William Palace III entered a plea of guilty to one count of violating 36 C.F.R. §1004.23(a)(1). Defendant's guilty plea was entered pursuant to a negotiated disposition wherein the parties agreed that a reasonable sentence was 96 hours in custody, and 3 years probation with certain special conditions. On May 9, 2008, defendant Palace was cited by a S.F. County Police officer for driving on a suspended license. A Form 8 was filed by U.S. Pretrial Services notifying the Court of this violation. The Final Presentence Report & Recommendation took into consideration both the underlying offense and the violation in recommending a sentence of 144 hours in custody, and 3 years probation with special conditions. The Recommendation

expressly states that "the probation officer has reconsidered the [initial] recommendation and now suggests an additional 48 hours of imprisonment for a total of 144 hours (6 days. )" (PSR Recommendations p.1-2) Both parties filed Sentencing Memorandum requesting the Court to find that under 18 U.S.C. §3553 a reasonable sentence is the recommended sentence of 144 hours in custody and 3 years probation with special conditions. On June 20, 2008 defendant Palace was sentenced by this Court to the recommended sentence of 144 hours in custody and 3 years probation with special conditions. Later that same day, a Judgement & Commitment Order was

electronically filed stating that the sentence imposed was 160 hours. On June 25, 2008, the Minutes for the Sentencing Hearing were electronically filed and served. The Minutes also erroneously stated that the Court imposed a sentence of 160 hours in custody.

-2-

Case 3:07-cr-00626-MAG

Document 12

Filed 06/29/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

F.R.Crim Pro. 35 PROVIDES AUTHORITY FOR THIS COURT TO CORRECT THE JUDGEMENT F.R.Crim Pro. 35(a) states in pertinent part " Within 7 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." The clerical error that occurred here is the type of situation Rule 35(a) was intended to address. At detailed above, this Court orally imposed a sentence of 144 hours in custody of the BOP to be followed by 3 years probation. However, both the minutes and the Judgement & Commitment Order erroneously state that defendant was sentenced to 160 hours in custody.

CONCLUSION Wherefore, pursuant to the authority of FR Crim Pro 35(a), Defendant William Palace hereby requests that this Court file an amended Judgement and Commitment Order and Minute Order to accurately state the 144 hour sentence imposed.

Respectfully Submitted,

/S/ DIANA L. WEISS Attorney For Defendant WILLIAM PALACE III

-3-