Error and/or relief
The matter is remanded for the trial court to correct the nunc pro tunc minute order dated in 2024 to reflect that in 2022, the defendant was resentenced pursuant to section 1170. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. The minute order incorrectly reflects that in 2022, the defendant was resentenced pursuant to sections 1172.7 and 1172.75, and must be corrected to reflect that he was resentenced pursuant to section 1170.
Holding:
The matter is remanded for the trial court to correct the nunc pro tunc minute order dated [on a date in] 2024 to reflect that [on a date in] 2022, the defendant was resentenced pursuant to section 1170. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority other than that both parties agreed, but generally speaking, the minute order must be amended to conform to the oral pronouncement. I have listed some authorities below that the court could have cited.]
Authority:
People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242 [Any discrepancy between the minutes and the oral pronouncement of a sentence is presumed to be the result of clerical error. Thus, the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails in cases where it deviates from that recorded in the minutes.]
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [holding reviewing courts have the inherent power on appeal to correct clerical errors found in court records, such as may be found in abstracts of judgment, whether on the court’s own motion or upon application of the parties]
People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89