Error and/or relief
The matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment for the conviction on count 2 by inserting on page one the number “6” both in the box for number of years imposed and in the box for “total time” imposed for that count.
[GARY NOTE: I can’t tell if this is a “victory,” but I included it because it is yet another instance of an error in the abstract. I suspect it had no impact in this case, but ….]Holding:
Inasmuch as it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that controls, we exercise our authority to order that the abstract be amended to conform to the sentence pronounced at the sentencing hearing. As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between an abstract and the actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time, and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal.
Authority:
People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324 [it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment; the abstract of judgment cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize]
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473
People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1631