Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
Holding:
At a full resentencing hearing, the trial court suspended the restitution fine originally imposed. The court specifically stated, “I will suspend any victim restitution fines due to inability to pay.” The court ordered the abstract of judgment to be amended accordingly. However, the third amended abstract of judgment filed does not reflect the restitution fine as being suspended. The third abstract of judgment shows a restitution fine in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to section 1202.4(b). Generally, when the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment conflict, the oral pronouncement prevails. This is because the abstract of judgment is not itself the judgment of conviction but merely a summary of the judgment. Any discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as recorded in the clerk’s minutes or abstract of judgment is presumed to be the result of clerical error. Hence, the third abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185