Background
Rande Brian Isabella was convicted of attempting to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity and attempting to produce child pornography. He was acquitted of other charges. After a failed habeas corpus motion and a motion to alter or amend the judgment, Isabella filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure thirty-six, arguing the judgment contained a clerical error because it did not reflect an acquittal or dismissal of the completed aspect of the child pornography count. The district court denied the motion, stating the theory was never submitted to the jury and the requested change would be a substantive modification.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure thirty-six authorizes the correction of clerical errors or errors arising from oversight or omission. However, it does not grant authority to substantively modify a defendant’s sentence. The court found that Isabella’s motion sought to dispose of a portion of the count that the jury did not consider, which would defy logic to have both a conviction and acquittal on the same count. Consequently, the requested correction would substantively modify the judgment, falling outside the scope of Rule thirty-six.
What it means going forward
This decision clarifies that motions under Rule thirty-six cannot be used to alter the substantive legal basis of a conviction or to dismiss theories of liability that were not presented to the jury.