Lorenzo Morales, proceeding pro se, appealed the denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in his 1994 criminal judgment from the District of Kansas. Morales claimed the judgment incorrectly listed his social security number. In 2024, he first filed a Rule 36 motion in the District of Kansas, but the court denied it, noting that jurisdiction over his probation had been transferred to the Southern District of Illinois in 1999. The district court suggested relief should be sought in the new district. The Tenth Circuit previously affirmed that denial on other grounds, noting a lack of evidence. Morales subsequently filed a new Rule 36 motion in the original District of Kansas, attaching a state-level social services record that appeared to list a different social security number. The district court again denied the motion, stating nothing had changed, without addressing the new evidence or clarifying whether it was still relying on the venue argument.
The Tenth Circuit panel, consisting of Judges Moritz, Baldock, and Eid, unanimously held that the district court erred in denying the motion based on jurisdictional or venue grounds. The court reasoned that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 permits the original sentencing court to amend judgments to correct clerical mistakes, and this authority is not lost when a defendant's probation is transferred to a different district. The panel cited Acardi v. Blackwell, noting that correction of clerical errors under Rule 36 is available only in the sentencing court. The court found no authority permitting a sentencing court to deny a Rule 36 motion simply because the defendant's supervision has moved. Furthermore, the panel determined the district court was incorrect in concluding that Morales failed to provide support for his claim, as his new filing included at least some evidence of the purportedly correct social security number. The court emphasized that Rule 36 is the appropriate vehicle for correcting non-substantive errors, such as a clerical mistake in a social security number, and that the district court should have evaluated the merits of the new evidence.
The decision requires the District of Kansas to reconsider Morales's Rule 36 motion on its merits, specifically evaluating the new evidence regarding his social security number. It clarifies that the original sentencing court retains exclusive jurisdiction to correct clerical errors under Rule 36, preventing future dismissals based on the argument that probation transfers shift that authority. The ruling leaves open the factual question of whether the social security number in the judgment is indeed a clerical error, which the district court must now resolve.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download