Error and/or relief
The court failed to award presentence conduct credits, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected (a) to show the correct section and description of the crime the jury convicted the defendant of in count 7, and (b) to delete the $10,000 restitution fine and the $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine that were waived by the court.
First Holding:
When the defendant is sentenced under section 667.61, the one strike law, the court need not grant such presentence conduct credit. But here it was error to deny the defendant credit for his presentence conduct under PC 667.61, because the People never invoked section 667.61 by alleging the strikable circumstances in the accusatory pleading. The lack of such notice precluded the trial court from sentencing the defendant subject to section 667.61. Further, such a sentencing scheme would have required the court to impose an indeterminate term, and it did not. The defendant was therefore entitled to an award of conduct credits at the rate of 15%, based on his conviction of violent felony.
Authority:
PEN 667.61
PEN 2933.1
People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036–1037
People v. Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373, 393–397
Second Holding:
Though the information charged the defendant in count 7 with section 245 as assault with a deadly weapon (defendant’s hands and feet), the jury was instructed only as to section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. The verdict form showed simply as charged under count 7 of the information. The jury could not have convicted the defendant of anything other than assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury because it was never instructed on any other crime for the purposes of count 7.
Thus, the verdict form’s reference to the erroneous charge is a clerical error rather than a reflection of the true verdict. We may correct a clerical error on a verdict form when the error does not reflect the jury’s actual verdict. The abstract lists the offense as section 245 assault with a deadly weapon. In light of the jury instruction and the verdict form, it must be corrected to reflect that the conviction was for section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.
Authority:
People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1065 [Hands and feet are not deadly weapons as a matter of law]
People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1026 [we presume the jury understood and followed instructions]
People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 370-371 [clerical correction to verdict forms after jury is discharged is not modification of verdict itself]
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time]
Third Holding:
The trial court ordered direct restitution to the victim but waived the separate mandatory fines and fees. The abstract of judgment erroneously lists two fines: a $10,000 restitution fine and a $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine per section 1202.45. When the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment are inconsistent with one another, the oral pronouncement controls over the abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment may be corrected at any time for accuracy.
On appeal, the Attorney General argues the abstract of judgment need not be amended because the fines have a mandatory minimum that can only be waived by a finding of compelling and extraordinary reasons, and the court’s reasoning here was insufficient. We need not reach this question. Any such argument was waived when the prosecutor did not object in the trial court.
Authority:
People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303
People v. Zachery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–188