Error and/or relief
Although not technically incorrect, the minute order is ambiguous and could be construed representing as a court finding that the court did not make. The court ordered a slight rewording.
Holding:
[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for its order rewording the minute order, but if one considers that the original order could be construed to mean something it did not, then this act is akin to ordering correction of a minute order. Though none was cited, the following cases do support the court’s authority to order corrections in abstracts of judgment and minute orders, often in the context of where the minute order or abstract does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement.]Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts with jurisdiction have the power to order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgment of the sentencing court]
People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement; the record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order and abstract of judgment]
Second Holding:
Add holding blurb here
Authority:
ADD AUTHORITIES HERE