Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct sentence to 27 years rather than the 27 years two months as shown, and to reflect that the term imposed for one count is one-third the middle term.
First Holding:
A reviewing court may order correction of an abstract of judgment that does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment by the sentencing court.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
Second Holding:
As a general rule, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. Our Supreme Court adopted this forfeiture rule to reduce the number of errors committed in the first instance], and the number of costly appeals brought on that basis. In the context of criminal sentencing, this forfeiture rule applies to claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices. Included in this category are cases in which the stated reasons allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354
People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 235
Third Holding:
At resentencing, the defendant did not ask the trial court to strike the prior serious felony enhancements or argue that imposing both the firearm enhancement and the upper term on count 16 would result in an impermissible dual use of facts. The record contains no sentencing brief; and both defense counsel and the defendant himself responded in the negative when the trial court asked if they wished to be heard at the resentencing hearing. To preserve his claims, the defendant was required to object at resentencing. Because he did not do so, his current appellate contentions are forfeited.
Authority:
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331,353
People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 723-725
Fourth Holding:
If the defendant believes that evidence outside the record would support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the proper remedy would be a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Authority:
People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 111