Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence orally imposed by the court. Here, the abstract incorrectly states that the court imposed an enhancement term of 25 years to life for gang-related firearm enhancements. In fact, those enhancements were not retried; they both must be stricken from the abstract. The abstract also incorrectly states that the enhancement imposed and stayed on count 3 was imposed under both subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) of section 12022.53.
First Holding:
An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
Second Holding:
A defendant who fails to object before the trial court to a sentence on the ground that it is being imposed in a procedurally or factually flawed manner generally forfeits the right to challenge such error on appeal. The objections must be specifically articulated, to provide the trial court with a meaningful opportunity to evaluate the claims and correct any errors. Appellant did not object when the court stated its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, nor did he object when given the opportunity to do so at the conclusion of the hearing. We accordingly find these arguments forfeited.
Authority:
In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 710
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354
People v. De Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 9