Palmiotto v. Wooster Parking Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a “signed sentencing order, if legal, controls over oral statements of the sentencing judge not incorporated into the signed judgment of sentence”
• recognizing a presumption that the written sentencing order represents what the sentencing judge intended
• finding no “clear clerical error” given the “variable use of the concept of ‘consecutive’ sentences”
• stating, “the signed, written sentencing order controls, where the sentencing transcript is ambiguous; the ambiguity in the transcript must be resolved by reference to the signed, written sentencing order” (citation omitted)
• reversing an order issued in October 2017 purporting to “correct” the appellant’s original January 1995 judgment of sentence “to clarify the court’s intent to run [the a]ppellant’s sentences consecutively”
• stating, “the signed, written sentencing order controls, where the sentencing transcript is ambiguous; the ambiguity in the transcript must be resolved by reference to the signed, written sentencing order” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).