Error and/or relief
The parties agree the minute order and abstract of judgment contain clerical errors regarding the imposed enhancements and should be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The court also must determine credit for time served. We agree.
First Holding:
Courts have the inherent power to correct clerical errors, either on their own motion or upon the application of the parties. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error]
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
Second Holding:
When a prison term already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.
Authority:
People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 673