In the present case, the district court had yet to schedule a trial, and the case was not dismissed at the motion hearing on July 10, 2023, because "an oral ruling by the trial court is not a final judgment, and . . . the [district] court can change such ruling at any time before the entry of written judgment." State v. Diaz, 1983-NMSC-090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501. As such, we conclude the case was dismissed when the court's written order was filed on September 7, 2023, and that the period of delay ended on that date.

We therefore defer to the court's written finding. Ledbetter v. Webb, 1985-NMSC-112, ¶ 34, 103 N.M. 597, 711 P.2d 874 (stating that a court's oral statements "may be used to clarify a finding of fact, [but] may not provide the basis for reversing that finding"); State v. Diaz, 1983-NMSC-090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501 ("It is well established that an oral ruling by the trial court is not a final judgment, and that the trial court can change such ruling at any time before the entry of written judgment."). II. The Reason for the Delay Weighs Moderately to Heavily for Defendant

{¶8} We first note that the general rule in New Mexico is that an oral ruling by a trial court is not final and, with only limited exceptions, it is not binding. See State v. Diaz, 1983-NMSC-090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501 ("It is well established that an oral ruling by the trial court is not a final judgment, and that the trial court can change such ruling at any time before the entry of written judgment."); State v. Rushing, 1985-NMCA-091, ¶ 6, 103 N.M. 333, 706 P.2d 875 ("An oral pronouncement is not a final judgment and is subject to change until reduced to writing."). In this case, the tape logs reflect that the district court made an oral ruling indicating an intention to reduce Defendant's sentence, but the record is not clear as to why that did not happen. Defendant asserts that it is because trial counsel failed to timely submit a written order

Namely, under New Mexico law, a sentence does not become final until the entry of a written judgment.State v. Diaz, 1983-NMSC-090, ¶¶ 2-6, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501 (N.M. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1016, 105 S.Ct. 429, 83 L.Ed.2d 356 (1984).

We recognize that some New Mexico precedent invokes the "well[-]established" rule that "the trial court can change [an oral sentence] at any time before the entry of written judgment." State v. Diaz , 1983-NMSC-090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501. But cf. 6 LaFave, supra , § 26.4(d) ("Unfortunately, it is not unusual for a trial judge to announce one sentence and enter another.

C. Defendant's Remaining Argument {15} Citing State v. Diaz , 1983-NMSC-090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501, Defendant also contends that the district court lacked authority to amend the sentence because he had an "expectation of finality" in the original sentence and the district court amended it after he had served two years of it. Diaz does not help Defendant's cause. While it holds that an oral ruling, including an oral pronouncement of sentence, is not a final judgment and can be changed at any time before entry of final judgment, id. ¶ 6, it does not address at all, much less hold, that a clerical error in a final judgment cannot be corrected pursuant to Rule 5-113(B).

See Rule 5-409(G) NMRA (requiring a written order). See also State v. Diaz , 1983-NMSC-090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501 ("It is well established that an oral ruling by the trial court is not a final judgment, and that the trial court can change such ruling at any time before the entry of written judgment.").[t]he State argues that no conditions of release can protect the community based on the nature of the charges.

" [MIO 5] The State does not dispute that "[i]t is well established that an oral ruling by the trial court is not a final judgment, and that the trial court can change such ruling at any time before the entry of written judgment." State v. Diaz, 1983-NMSC-090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501; see also State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 20, 144 N.M. 297, 187 P.3d 162 ("[A] trial court's oral announcement of a result is not final, and parties to the case should have no reasonable expectation of its finality."); State v. Vaughn, 2005-NMCA-076, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 674, 114 P.3d 354 ("The general rule in New Mexico is that an oral ruling by a trial court is not final and, with only limited exceptions, it is not binding.").

It cannot be appealed from and is subject to change until reduced to writing and filed with the clerk.State v. Diaz, 673 P.2d 501, 502 (N.M. 1983). As discussed above, the state district judge made and retracted the initial sentence of two-and-a-half years after Knotts signed the Plea Agreement. The sentence was not part of the Plea Agreement, and therefore raises a question of state law: namely, was the sentence lawfully imposed? The state district judge's oral pronouncement on June 4, 2012, did not constitute a final judgment and could be changed at any time before the entry of written judgment.

“It is well established that an oral ruling by the trial court is not a final judgment, and that the trial court can change such ruling at any time before the entry of written judgment.” State v. Diaz, 1983–NMSC–090, ¶ 4, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501. Thus, the district court's oral ruling in this case on December 29, 2010, was not a final order.