Error and/or relief
(Gary note: This is not a win, but I have included it as yet another instance where an abstract of judgment needed correction.) There were errors in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected.
First Holding:
Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
Second Holding:
Here, the trial court orally imposed a section 1202.5 fine, which included “the fines, fees, assessments, and surcharges in paragraph 4 on page 15 in the probation report.” The abstract of judgment, however, does not list the individual penalty assessments imposed by the court or their statutory bases, as required.
Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to correct the clerical error in the abstract of judgment to reflect a $10 fine under section 1202.5 and assessments in the following amounts: a $2.00 court surcharge (sec. 1465.7), a $5.00 state court facilities construction fee (Gov. Code, sec. 70372(a)), a $10.00 state penalty assessment (sec. 1464), a $1.00 DNA identification fund fee (Gov. Code, sec. 76104.6), a $4.00 DNA identification fund fee (Gov. Code, sec. 76104.7), and a $7.00 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 76000).
Authority:
People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200