Judicial error is committed when the court intended the order or judgment it made, even though it was based on an error of law. Since a judicial error may be committed by a judge and a clerical error may (or may not be) committed by a clerk, the type of error may be difficult to determine. In Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, the court described the differences between the two types of errors:
“The difference between judicial and clerical error rests not upon the party committing the error, but rather on whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.” (Id. at p. 1238.)
The type of error will determine the remedy. If a simple clerical error was committed, then a party can make a motion before the same tribunal to correct the error. But the court cannot amend a judgment to modify or materially affect the parties’ rights under this inherent power. (Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1204 [“The difference between judicial and clerical error rests not upon the party committing the error, but rather on whether ‘it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination'”].)
If such an error occurs, and the judgment has been entered, the trial court cannot correct the error and the parties must look to the appellate courts to do so. “Unless the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error. (Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal. App.4th 110, 117.) Thus, if the court “construed the evidence before it, or misapplied the law applicable to the facts disclosed by the evidence, or was even misled by counsel,” the error is not a clerical one and must be corrected on by a post-judgment motion or on appeal.