David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman

Summary

The court held that a nunc pro tunc order may correct only a clerical error or omission in the record, not a judicial error or an unexpressed sentencing intention. Because the order changing Freeman’s sentence to permit parole exceeded the trial court’s authority, it was void and subject to collateral attack, making the preliminary injunction legally erroneous. The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, reversed the injunction, and remanded for consideration of other possible grounds for relief.