Category Archives: Abstracts and Minutes

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000959

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to recalculate his custody credits and the amended abstract of judgment reflects the incorrect amount of conduct credit. The abstract of judgment must be amended to accurately reflect defendant’s custody credits and his restitution fine must be vacated due to recent amendments to section 1465.9.

First Holding:

The trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Second Holding:

In cases where there is no factual dispute as to the dates of custody and the calculation is merely arithmetical, the defendant should not be deprived of credit to which he or she is entitled merely because trial counsel made a mistake.

Authority:

People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 959

People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects that the conduct credit days ordered at the original sentencing hearing was 40 days instead of the 70 days actually granted. The abstract must be corrected to reflect the 70 days pre-sentence conduct credit.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 981, 993

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 74–75

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), providing that any portion of a restitution fine under section 1465.9 that is not paid within 10 years must be vacated.

Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. The restitution fine was originally imposed in 2007, and defendant was resentenced over 18 years later. We therefore vacate the fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1066

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000957

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be amended to show that the restitution fine was vacated and the trial court security fee was stayed. We also order corrections on the minute order from the resentencing hearing.

First Holding:

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court suspended or stayed any unpaid amounts of the previously imposed court fees and the restitution fine. In contrast, the abstract of judgment filed after the resentencing hearing erroneously showed the trial court imposed the restitution fine of $10,000 and the court security fee of $20.

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. Further, the minute order reflects that the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, whereas he was actually convicted of murder in the first degree.

The minute order also must be amended.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

Second Holding:

Further, although the trial court intended to stay or suspend any unpaid balance of the restitution fine, that fine must be vacated because it was imposed more than 10 years earlier and the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect that it has been vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000956

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by imposing two concurrent sentences for firearm convictions based on the same, single act of possessing a firearm. We remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

The trial court imposed a middle term of four years for possession of a firearm. It then imposed concurrent sentences for carrying a loaded firearm and carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle, all committed while having a prior felony conviction.

This sentence violates section 654’s prohibition of multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct. All three convictions were based on a single possession or carrying of a single firearm on a single occasion and may be punished only once under section 654.

Authority:

PEN 654(a) [an act punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision]

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 357

Second Holding:

That the concurrent sentences imposed for counts 7 and 8 are served simultaneously with the sentence for count 6 is inconsequential. A concurrent sentence is still a punishment subject to section 654. In these circumstances, the trial court was required to impose one sentence and to stay the execution of the duplicative sentence.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380

Third Holding:

(Gary note: The opinion did not describe count 3 or what the oral pronouncement of sentence was for that count, but in the opinion’s disposition paragraph, the court included the following sentence: “The clerk of the superior court is also directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the orally pronounced sentence on count 3.”

(That is the only reference to the abstract in the opinion. I include this as a “holding” because it represents yet another instance of where an abstract of judgment was apparently incorrect. The cases I have listed below are some of several cases that the court could have chosen to cite as authority for its order.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000952

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in pronouncing judgment regarding custody credits. Though the court announced the actual and conduct amounts separately and correctly, the court announced an incorrect total of the two. We modify the judgment accordingly.

Holding:

the trial court awarded the defendant 98 days of actual credit and 98 days of conduct credit (sec. 4019), but made a mathematical error in announcing the defendant’s total credit as 180 days rather than 196 days. The abstract of judgment already reflects the proper total and need not be corrected, but we modify the judgment to reflect the correct total.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [judgment is the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment; an abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control if different from the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment]

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000950

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: this is not necessarily a win, but I included it because it contains authority that might be useful at some point, if it works to the benefit of the defendant. In this instance, the court remanded for a full resentencing, which could be beneficial to the defendant, because the trial court should be able to consider his progress since the initial sentencing. Assuming there has been progress.

(Keep in mind the original section 1170(d)–which is not related to this case at all–that allowed a judge to recall a sentence at any time during the first 120 days after commitment. I think the concept was that maybe a judge could be persuaded to soften a bit once the defendant has some real time under his belt. Now, of course, the appropriate section has been redesigned and renumbered to 1170.1, which is not at issue in this case, either. But my point is that the defendant might be able to convince the judge to soften from the original sentence. On the other hand, the judge might simply add the full sentence allowed for the misdemeanor and run it consecutively. So, ….)

The trial court neglected to sentence the defendant on count 7, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. The failure to pronounce sentence on this count was error and that the appropriate remedy is remand for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

A trial court has a duty in both felony and misdemeanor cases to pronounce sentence on every conviction.

Authority:

PEN 12

PEN 1202

PEN 1445

People v. Eberhardt (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1121–1122

People v. Cheffen (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 638, 641–642

People v. Morrow (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 507, 514.)

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 415

Second Holding:

The failure to pronounce sentence on a count is an unauthorized sentence and subject to correction on remand.

Authority:

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

People v. Benton (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 92, 102 [failure to either strike or impose enhancement was analogous to a failure to pronounce sentence on all counts, which is the type of unauthorized sentence that can be corrected by remand on the defendant’s appeal]

Third Holding:

Even if the minute order or the abstract of judgment did reflect a sentence on count 7, failure to pronounce sentence orally renders the sentence unauthorized.

Authority:

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2 [the record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order]

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement and controls over minutes and abstract of judgment]

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

Fourth Holding:

Under these circumstances, we agree with the parties that the proper remedy is a remand for full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431 [remand is the default unless there is a clear indication from the sentencing court that it would be idle to do so]

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994–995

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1257–1258 [finding full resentencing appropriate given the interlocking nature and inherently integrated nature of felony sentencing for a multiple-count conviction]

Fifth Holding:

Remand is appropriate for the additional reason that the trial court should decide whether section 654 applies to count 7 in the first instance.

(Gary note: The court did not mention it, because it really wasn’t even an issue raised and this mention was strictly in a footnote, but under section 654, the trial court could choose EITHER affected count to sentence the defendant under. So if the misdemeanor and a felony were subject to a single sentence under section 654, the court could impose the misdemeanor sentence and stay the felony sentence. Could happen.)

Authority:

People v. Deegan (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 532, 545, fn. 4 [the question whether section 654 is factually applicable to a given series of offenses is for the trial court, and the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination]

People v. Jones (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 37, 46 [concluding in part that the need to apply section 654 warrants a full resentencing]