Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment contains a clerical error regarding the imposed fines. The defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence on some counts and a determinate sentence of others. Two different forms are used–one is the abstract for the indeterminate sentence, the other for the determinate sentence. Though the court imposed only one restitution fine and one parole revocation restitution fine, both fines appear on both forms. While not necessarily improper, it can lead to an ambiguity. In an abundance of caution, and because we agree the duplicate reference could possibly lead to confusion, we direct the clerk of the court issue an amended determinate abstract of judgment, leaving the restitution fine and parole revocation restitution fine reflected only on the indeterminate abstract of judgment, form CR-292.
First Holding:
Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction can order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324
People v. Caudillo (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 122, 126
Second Holding:
A trial court must accurately set forth all fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency]
Third Holding:
The court has authority to order correction of abstracts of judgment to avoid ambiguity.
Authority:
People v. Frey (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 139, 142 [finding ambiguity between the court’s order and the statement on the abstract of judgment form required correction]