Error and/or relief
There are several errors in the abstract of judgment that require correction. Whereas the trial court orally pronounced a consecutive three-year sentence on count 6, the abstract identifies a concurrent three-year sentence on that count. Under item 8 of the abstract, the “TOTAL TIME” for counts 2 and 6 through 9 is calculated as seven years instead of six years. Finally, the abstract makes no mention of the concurrent 180 days on count 3 and a concurrent 180 days on count 4. These errors should be corrected.
Holding:
An abstract of judgment is a contemporaneous, statutorily sanctioned, officially prepared clerical record of the conviction and sentence. Under section 1213, the certified abstract of the judgment constitutes the commitment. It is thus the order sending the defendant to prison and the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect. However, 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. When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, an appellate court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on its own motion or upon application of the parties.
Authority:
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89