Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment in the defendant’s case erroneously includes enhancements that the superior court struck when it resentenced the defendant.
First Holding:
In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence.
Authority:
People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9
Second Holding:
The transcript of the resentencing proceeding affirmatively shows that the court did not impose either a gun or a firearm enhancement in connection with the LWOP sentences. Additionally, the transcript of the earlier proceeding shows that the court’s failure to mention the enhancements was not by accident because it considered any enhancements on the LWOP counts to be irrelevant. Despite the court’s striking of the enhancements, the abstract of judgment reflects that the court imposed the same enhancements included in the 2015 sentence under sections 186.22(b)(1) and 12022.53(b) and (c). It is well settled that 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, this court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal
Authority:
People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89