E.g. , J.P. v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 308, at 1, 462 S.W.3d 358, 359 (a written order supersedes an oral ruling in juvenile-delinquency cases); Nat'l Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Coleman , 370 Ark. 119, 121, 257 S.W.3d 862, 863 (2007) ("Simply put, the written order controls.") (civil case). The lone case on which our dissenting colleague primarily relies, Gholson v. State , 2009 Ark. App. 373, 308 S.W.3d 189, is not like this one. In Gholson , the prosecuting attorney had presented a twenty-nine-page list of stale cases to the court that the prosecutor wanted to nolle prosequi.

To subsequently revive the charge is a matter of substance, and, therefore, the rule regarding clerical errors does not apply to this case. In its brief, the state directs us to Gholson v. State, 308 S.W.3d 189 (Ark. App. 2009). In that case, the defendant had pleaded guilty to two counts of battery and sentenced to 240 months incarceration and a 120 months suspended sentence.

A true clerical error is "essentially one that arises not from an exercise of the court's judicial discretion but from a mistake on the part of its officers or perhaps someone else." Gholson v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 373, at 4, 308 S.W.3d 189, 191. A circuit court can enter an order nunc pro tunc at any time to correct clerical errors for the purpose of making "the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken." Rowe, 374 Ark. at 24-25, 285 S.W.3d at 619-20. "

In Watson, supra, our supreme court discussed the modification of Rule 60 since Taylor, supra, was decided and concluded that the language in Taylor stating that “where an order is entered by the court in error, it is not a clerical error,” was not affected by the amendment to Rule 60. Watson, 372 Ark. at 60, 270 S.W.3d at 829.Appellees cite Gholson v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 373, 308 S.W.3d 189, a criminal case that was erroneously dismissed by a nolle prosequi order then continued to hearing on the State's petition to revoke. On appeal, we stated that an order entered in error does not speak the truth, and courts have the power to enter an amended judgment and commitment order nunc pro tunc to correct an erroneous judgment.

Riley points out that he was charged with, and convicted by the circuit court of, misdemeanor fleeing. It is apparent to us that the judgment and commitment order reflects a scrivener's error. See Gholson v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 373, 308 S.W.3d 189 (defining a true clerical error, one that may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order, as “essentially one that [Ark. App. 8]arises not from an exercise of the court's judicial discretion but from a mistake on the part of its officers (or perhaps someone else)”) (quoting Francis v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 371 Ark. 285, 265 S.W.3d 117 (2007)). A circuit court can enter an order nunc pro tunc at any time to correct clerical errors in a judgment or order. Vance v. State, 2011 Ark. 243, 383 S.W.3d 325;State v. Rowe, 374 Ark. 19, 285 S.W.3d 614 (2008) (quoting Lord v. Mazzanti, 339 Ark. 25, 29, 2 S.W.3d 76, 79 (1999), for the proposition that the common-law rule of nunc pro tunc orders and the power of a court to make “the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken,” applies in criminal cases).