Error and/or relief
The trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and its sentencing minute order included an unauthorized sentence on the attempted robbery conviction.
First Holding:
The one-year sentence reflected in the reporter’s transcript and the eight-year sentence reflected in the sentencing minute order should be corrected because the authorized consecutive sentence on this count is eight months.
Authority:
Pen. Code, sec. 1170.1(a)
People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 797 [one-third middle term sentence for second degree attempted robbery is eight months]
Second Holding:
The court may correct unauthorized sentence at any time. [GARY NOTE: This holding may be true only if the court has jurisdiction to proceed in the case, as established by other case law. You’ll want to review at least the three cases that I cite below Scott–not cited in this unpublished opinion–and the cases they cite if you need to get a judge to take jurisdiction or if you need to oppose a judge’s orders made without jurisdiction.]
Authority:
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783
People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App. 56
People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976
Third Holding:
Although a court’s oral pronouncement of judgment ordinarily controls given our obligation to correct unauthorized sentences, we conclude that an oral pronouncement of an unauthorized sentence does not control over a correct abstract of judgment. Accordingly, we shall modify the oral pronouncement of judgment to reflect a consecutive eight-month sentence on count 6 and direct the trial court to amend its sentencing minute order to reflect this modification.
Authority:
People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1340 [on the principle that the oral pronouncement normally controls]