Error and/or relief
We will order the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order corrected to conform to the jury’s finding of only one prior strike and the oral pronouncement of judgment.
First Holding:
The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects that the jury found true two prior conviction allegations even though a second prior conviction allegation was not submitted to the jury. The abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order currently reflect 200 days of actual credits and 200 days of conduct credits for a total of 400 days. We will direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment and corrected minute order conforming to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The trial court shall correct the sentencing minute order to reflect time served rather than a 60-day consecutive sentence on count three. The trial court should correct the sentencing minute order and amend the abstract of judgment to reflect 140 days of actual time and 140 days of conduct credits for a total of 280 days of custody credits.
An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize. Likewise, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the clerk’s minute order.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2
Second Holding:
It is well established that the Three Strikes law is not an enhancement. It is an alternative sentencing scheme for the current offense.
Authority:
People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 243