Error and/or relief
There are several errors in the abstract of judgment that require correction.
First Holding:
A $300 restitution fine that was not orally imposed appears in the abstract of judgment. Where the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment conflict, the oral pronouncement controls. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment striking the $300 restitution fine.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186
People v. Crenshaw (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1416
Second Holding:
Further, the defendant was convicted of an offense that carries a life term plus a firearm enhancement that carries 25 years to life. The court pronounced and the abstract reflects a sentence of 32 years to life: ostensibly seven years to life on the conviction and 25 years to life on the enhancement.
But while a sentence to a life term requires at least seven years in custody before parole elibility, the “seven years” is not part of the sentence. Accordingly, we modify the sentence and direct the court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Wong (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 972, 977, fn. 4
Third Holding:
By failing to object at the time of the order, the defendant forfeited his argument that it was improper to delegate authority to the probation officer to determine the amount of restitution.
Authority:
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 352, fn. 15 [When a defendant does not object to allowing the probation officer to determine the amount of restitution, the propriety of such an order has been waived for appellate purposes.]