“When there is a conflict between the oral opinion of the trial judge and the order entered, the oral opinion is controlling. State v. Pohlabel, 40 N.J. Super. 416, 423 (App. Div. 1956); see also State v. Warmbrun, 277 N.J. Super. 51, 58 n.2 (App. Div. 1994), certif. denied, 140 N.J. 277 (1995).”

“Where there is a conflict between a judge’s written or oral opinion and a subsequent written order, the former controls.” Taylor v. Int’l Maytex Tank Terminal Corp., 355 N.J. Super. 482, 498 (App. Div. 2002);

 “See also State v. Pohlabel, 40 N.J. Super. 416, 423 (App. Div. 1956) (indicating that “where there is a conflict between the oral sentence and the written commitment, the former will control if clearly stated and adequately shown, since it is the true source of the sentence, instead of the latter which is merely the work of a clerk“). State v. Mercado DOCKET NO. A-3394-11T2 (N.J. Super. Jan. 22, 2015)”

 “Plaintiff is correct that there is an inconsistency between the trial court’s oral decision and its written order, but a remand for clarification of the judge’s ruling is unnecessary.” Where there is a conflict between a judge’s written or oral opinion and a subsequent written order, the former controls.” Taylor v. Int’l Maytex Tank Terminal Corp., 355 N.J. Super. 482, 498 (App. Div. 2002). Here, the opinion the trial court placed on the record following oral argument controls.”

 “When a sentencing court’s oral sentence and its written sentence “are in conflict,” the oral sentence prevails. United States v. Faulks, 201 F.3d 208, 211 (3d Cir. 2000).”

 “However, when there is no conflict between the oral and written statements, but rather only ambiguity in either or both, we have recognized that the controlling oral sentence “often [consists of] spontaneous remarks” that “are addressed primarily to the case at hand and are unlikely to be a perfect or complete statement of all the surrounding law.” Rios, 201 F.3d at 268 (citation omitted).”

 “We see no conflict between the oral and written statements, but rather consistency; the sentencing judge said that he was going to go ahead and adjust, and that is precisely what he did. The mere fact that he may have been somewhat loose in his language pronouncing the sentence, however, does not persuade us that he intended to issue only a nonbinding recommendation to the BOP when the written judgment — which merely clarifies, and is not in conflict with, the oral sentence — as well as the context in which the judge’s remarks were made demonstrate otherwise.”