EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:
Bergmann appeals from denial of his motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 36,
In an Order dated May 14, 1984 Judge Fitzgerald committed Richard Bergmann to federal custody for a total of six years' imprisonment (five concurrent terms, each of five years' duration; plus four concurrent terms, each of one year's duration). The Order provided explicitly that Bergmann's terms of five years and one year were to run "consecutively, not concurrently."
Two years later, in June of 1986, Bergmann moved to correct his sentence. Bergmann had discovered a discrepancy between his Judgment/Commitment Order and the court reporter's certified transcript of his sentencing hearing. According to the transcript, Judge Fitzgerald ordered
In support of his Rule 36 motion Bergmann pointed to a direct conflict between the sentence imposed in his Judgment/Commitment Order and the sentence apparent in the court reporter's certified transcript. The government opposed Bergmann's motion to "correct" his sentence, and sought to establish that the clerical error lay not in the Judgment/Commitment Order but in the certified transcript of Bergmann's sentencing hearing.
In support of its theory the government advanced three affidavits. The first was from the original prosecuting attorney; the second, from Judge Fitzgerald; and the third, from the original court reporter, who swore that she wished to "correct" her original transcript by filing two "corrected pages" (thereby replacing the crucial word "concurrently" with the word "consecutive").
Judge von der Heydt relied on those affidavits in denying Bergmann's Rule 36 motion:
Memorandum and Order of April 15, 1987.
Bergmann moved for reconsideration of that order. He countered the government's affidavits with an affidavit from a stenotyping expert, who swore that the word "consecutive" never appeared in the original court reporter's notes.
In denying the motion for reconsideration Judge von der Heydt explained:
Memorandum and Order of June 3, 1987.
"[Fed.R.Crim P.] 36 envisions that the district court will make a factual finding of whether the clerk of the court committed error in describing the sentence imposed by the court." United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir.1985). We therefore generally review denial of a Rule 36 motion for clear error. Id. That standard governs our review of all "historical facts" found by the trial court. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984). We review questions of law de novo. Id. at 1201.
Judge von der Heydt misstated the law that governs Rule 36 motions. That law is clear: "The only sentence that is legally cognizable is the actual oral pronouncement in the presence of the defendant." United States v. Munoz-Dela Rosa, 495 F.2d 253, 256 (9th Cir.1974). See United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1451-52 & n. 5 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc). It is the words pronounced by the judge at sentencing, not the words reduced to writing in the judge's Judgment/Commitment Order, that constitute the legal sentence.
Munoz-Dela Rosa, 495 F.2d at 254. The judge denied the motion. This court reversed. Our analysis there clearly governs the case now before us:
Id. at 256.
The dispositive question before Judge von der Heydt was whether the original certified transcript "correctly reported" Judge Fitzgerald's oral pronouncement of Bergmann's sentence. In making that determination, the court was bound to look first to the official Reporter's certified transcript. By statute that record is deemed "prima facie" correct. 28 U.S.C. § 753(b).
Bergmann brought his Rule 36 motion in express reliance on the sentence indicated in the certified sentencing transcript. He was entitled to presume that the transcript was correct. The government, to defeat Bergmann's motion, was required to overcome that presumption.
In its April 15 ruling, the court made only two ostensible findings of fact: first, the "original reporter's transcript was apparently in error," and second, "the judgment [Commitment Order] correctly set forth the sentence that Judge Fitzgerald intended to impose." (Emphasis added). The first "finding" is curiously crabbed: was the transcript in fact in error, or only apparently in error? The second finding is, by itself, irrelevant. See Munoz-Dela Rosa.
In moving for reconsideration of the court's ruling, Bergmann responded to the government's evidence with an affidavit from a stenotype "expert." The court did not directly address Bergmann's new evidence. Rather, it dismissed Bergmann's motion for reconsideration by mistakenly ruling that:
The government would have us read those words as surplusage, an unnecessary fall-back analysis we should disregard in light of the court's earlier "factual determination" that the transcript was in error. But that earlier determination was no clear finding of fact. And we are not persuaded that the court's persistent misperception of applicable law did not distort its view of the evidence the parties adduced.
We recognize our duty to affirm based on any grounds in the record which validate the lower court's result. United States v. Stevens, 548 F.2d 1360, 1363 n. 9 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 975, 97 S.Ct. 1666, 52 L.Ed.2d 369 (1977). We do not find such grounds here.
We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.