Category Archives: Abstracts and Minutes

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000948

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment does not reflect the in-custody credits announced by the court during the resentencing hearing. Specifically, the court ordered the abstract of judgment to reflect, not only the presentence credits but also the actual days in prison, which were calculated as [X] days [more than 32 years]. It must be corrected.

Holding:

The failure to include the credit for time served pronounced in the oral judgment is clerical error. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000932

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment against the defendant contains a clerical error that must be corrected. It states the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $2,800 under Penal Code section 1202.4(b). The reporter’s transcript of the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement, however, states the fine was $280.

We direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct amount.

Holding:

Conflicts between the oral pronouncement of judgment found in the reporter’s transcript and the abstract of judgment found in the clerk’s transcript are generally presumed to be clerical in nature and are resolved in favor of the reporter’s transcript unless the particular circumstances dictate otherwise. An abstract of judgment must reflect a restitution fine a sentencing court has orally imposed under section 1202.4(b). Courts may correct clerical errors at any time.

Authority:

In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 30, fn. 4

People v. Gonzalez (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 724, 744

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

People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1080

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000931

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment fails to list the imposition of the restitution fine that was ordered for the misdemeanor conviction. It must be corrected.

(Gary note: Yep, not a win, but another example of errant abstracts.)

First Holding:

Where a defendant has been convicted of both a misdemeanor and a felony, it is proper for the court to impose separate restitution fines. The parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45 should match the portion of the restitution fine associated with the felony conviction to which a period of parole applied.

Authority:

People v. Holmes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 539, 546-548

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment is missing the $150 restitution fine imposed on the misdemeanor count. We will direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment including this additional restitution fine. Because the trial court’s minute order following sentencing already includes this amount, no amendment to that document is required.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its order to correct the abstract of judgment, so I have listed some cases that the court could have drawn from.)

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

Case 000928

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment indicates that the defendant was convicted by plea. It is incorrect. The defendant was convicted by jury. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

Holding:

(Gary note: The court cited no authority for its order to correct the abstract, but it could have drawn from any of many cases. I have set forth a few for your convenience.)

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

Case 000927

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains several errors that must be corrected to reflect the correct case number, the proper number of days of credit for time served, and the imposition of a minimum restitution fine.

Holding:

We will direct the trial court to correct these errors and omissions in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Frahs (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 784

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000924

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. There is a multiple victim exception to section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

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

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. There is a multiple victim exception to … section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

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

Fifth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000918

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following the invitation by the defendant to recall his sentence under section 1170.1, the trial court did recall his sentence and resentenced him to a considerably lesser number of years, but still more than 50 years to life. We affirm the trial court’s resentencing decision, with directions to make a correction to the record.

The trial court appropriately and correctly recalculated his credit for time served, but the abstract of judgment fails to reflect the recalculation. 

Holding:

We direct the trial court on remittitur to amend and forward to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) the abstract of judgment to reflect more than 10,000 days of actual credit and conduct credit that the trial court determined defendant was entitled to as of the resentencing date.

[Gary note: The court does not list any authority for ordering correction of the abstract of judgment, most likely because the authority is so obvious. But for your convenience, I have listed some of the cases that the court could have cited.]

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, Sentencing

Case 000914

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After trial, the trial court issued a criminal protective order (CPO) barring the defendant from contacting his ex-wife and their two minor children. The CPO also included a pretrial order prohibiting him from dissuading the victim or witnesses from attending court hearings.

The order, however, left unselected an option that would allow exceptions for future juvenile, family, or probate court orders for the safe exchange of children and court-ordered visitation.

The CPO should not include the defendant’s children as protected parties, and it should not have included the pretrial provision regarding the dissuading of witnesses. The lack of any exceptions for future orders from other courts does not reflect the trial court’s oral ruling. We therefore partially vacate the CPO and modify it accordingly.

First Holding:

Criminal protective orders are governed by section 136.2; the trial court may issue a pretrial order under subdivision (a) of the statute, which does not survive after final judgment is rendered.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 236

Second Holding:

Section 136.2(i) authorizes posttrial orders if the defendant has been convicted of a qualifying offense, including those involving domestic violence. In a postconviction order, the court may bar the defendant from contacting a victim of the crime, or a percipient witness to the crime. The trial court issued the challenged CPO after trial. The trial court erred by entering a pretrial order.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1) and (i)(2)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 236-237

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 143

Third Holding:

The trial court should not have included the defendant’s children as protected parties under the CPO. The jury convicted walker of assault on his ex-wife, which is a qualifying domestic violence offense. However, nothing in the record indicates that the defendant’s children were victims or percipient witnesses of that crime. As such, there was no basis to include the defendant’s children as protected parties.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

FAM 13700(a) and (b).)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237 [children who were present during domestic violence event, but asleep, did not qualify as victims or percipient witnesses under sec. 136.2(i)]

Fourth Holding:

The trial court expressed its intention to let the family court deal with any potential exceptions to its no-contact order. However, the trial court did not select item 14(b), which would allow an exception for future orders from another court. The CPO therefore does not match the trial court’s stated ruling.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for it order regarding modifying the CPO to permit another court to consider exceptions. When the abstract of judgment or minute order does not comport with the oral pronouncement, the court certainly has the power to make corrections. I have listed some cases on that point below, but keep in mind, they deal with abstracts of judgments and minute orders, not criminal protective orders. But remember that section 1260 grants the appellate courts very broad power to amend the judgment.)

Authority:

PEN 1260 [The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.]

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, Effective assistance of counsel, Racial Justice Act, Sentencing

Case 000913

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, we conclude that his claim under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) is not cognizable on appeal.

We agree, however, that the abstract of judgment requires correction. So we will direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment and affirm.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted the RJA in 2020, effective January 1, 2021—more than a year before the preliminary hearing in this case. Under the RJA, the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

The defendant argues that expert testimony at the preliminary hearing exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. Alternatively, if his RJA claim is forfeited due to counsel’s failure to object below, he argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Although an RJA claim may be raised on direct appeal, the gravamen of the defendant’s RJA claim is that he should be relieved of his otherwise knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea agreement as it was obtained in violation of the RJA.

Because his claim thus goes to the validity of his plea, it is not cognizable on appeal absent a certificate of probable cause.

When the judgment appealed from was obtained by the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, the sole exceptions to the requirement of a certificate are for appeals solely on noncertificate grounds postplea matters not challenging his plea’s validity and/or matters involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested pursuant to section 1538.5.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1237.5

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694

Second Holding:

Section 1237.5’s requirement of a certificate of probable cause should be applied in a strict manner, as it lays down a condition precedent to the taking of an appeal within its scope. Its assumption is that, as a general matter, a judgment of conviction entered on a defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere does not present any issue warranting relief on appeal, and hence should not be reviewed thereon.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097-1098

Third Holding:

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance arises from counsel’s performance before entry of the plea, and courts have consistently held that claims of ineffective assistance deriving from counsel’s preplea acts require a certificate.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1092 [deeming counsel’s failure to request a hearing on competency a certificate issue]

People v. Moore (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 90, 94 [claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request pretrial mental health diversion requires certificate of probable cause]

People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245 [challenge that counsel’s preplea performance was deficient requires a certificate of probable cause]

Fourth Holding:

Nor can we find any suggestion that the Legislature intended to exempt RJA claims from the requirements of section 1237.5.

Had the Legislature intended for RJA claims to be decided on their merits whenever raised, it would not have required RJA motions to be made as soon as practicable and would have exempted such motions from the traditional rules of appellate forfeiture.

Requiring a defendant to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge grounds going to the legality of the proceedings after a plea is neither novel nor new, and the Legislature is deemed to be aware of existing laws and judicial constructions in effect at the time legislation is enacted.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1076

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 634

Fifth Holding:

The purpose for requiring a certificate of probable cause is to discourage and weed out frivolous or vexatious appeals challenging convictions following guilty and nolo contendere pleas.

Thus, a trial court must issue the certificate if the defendant’s statement under section 1237.5 presents any cognizable issue for appeal which is not clearly frivolous and vexatious. If a court refuses to issue a certificate of probable cause, the defendant may seek a writ of mandate from the appellate court.

This low bar for issuance of a certificate would not hinder defendants from validly challenging their convictions based on alleged RJA violations.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75

People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676

Sixth Holding:

Because the defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our review of his claims is thus limited to those issues that do not require a certificate.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3)

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains a clerical error. Although the defendant admitted a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(c), the trial court ultimately elected to impose a lesser enhancement under section 12022.53(d), as permitted in Tirado. The abstract of judgment, however, erroneously lists a section 12022.53(c) enhancement. We therefore direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court may correct a clerical error in an abstract of judgment at any time]

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000912

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains the wrong date of the judgment and the calculation of credits for time served. The abstract must be corrected.

Holding:

We direct the superior court on remand to amend the final abstract of judgment to state the correct sentencing date and credits.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 188 [appellate court may order modification of inaccuracies in abstract of judgment]

People v. Moore (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 783, 788 [modifying judgment to correct conduct credits]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000911

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his request for resentencing under section 1172.1. We dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order but order the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: This is not exactly a win, and yet it may be in a way. I include it because it contains another example of an abstract of judgment that does not reflect the actual judgment, albeit the error favors the defendant in one respect, while doing him a disservice in another. The opinion contains an interesting aspect that possibly could result in a resentencing of the defendant through a different means.)

First Holding:

Under section 1172.1, a trial court may recall a sentence and resentence a defendant at any time upon the recommendation of various designated correctional or law enforcement authorities, including the Secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings, the county correctional administrator, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General. The trial court may also recall and resentence a defendant on its own motion within 120 days of the date of commitment.

In addition, pursuant to an amendment effective January 1, 2024, a trial court now also has jurisdiction to recall a sentence and resentence a defendant on its own motion at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Olea (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 889, 896-897

Second Holding:

Section 1172.1 expressly denies defendants the right to file a petition for resentencing under that section, and expressly excuses the trial court from acting on any such request that a defendant might nevertheless file.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(c) [A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.]

People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046

People v. Olea (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 889, 896-897

People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998-999 [sec. 1172.1 does not entitle a defendant to petition the court for relief and a petition filed by defendant is best viewed as merely inviting the court to consider whether it wishes to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1]

Third Holding:

Because a defendant has no right to a superior court ruling when he or she requests consideration for relief under section 1172.1, the court’s choice not to act on the defendant’s petition does not deprive the defendant of a substantial right. Accordingly, a superior court’s decision declining a defendant’s invitation to recall his sentence under section 1172.1 is not appealable.

Because the defendant initiated the section 1172.1 petition and the superior court declined to act on it, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Authority:

People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046

People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 697 [there is no appellate jurisdiction over an order declining to act on a defendant’s unauthorized section 1172.1 petition]

Fourth Holding:

The superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that Steele’s sentence includes a one-year prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), that was imposed but stayed.

Authority:

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 790-791 [the court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time]

Fifth Holding:

(Gary note: This is the part where the appellate court gives a strong clue to the defendant on how he might proceed at this point. The Fourth Holding described that the failure of the abstract of judgment was that it did not indicate the imposition and staying of what is now an invalid prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5(b). Here’s the benefit to the defendant that may flow from the appellate court’s direction that the abstract be amended to include that imposed-but-stayed now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. What should happen next is the receipt by CDCR of the amended abstract of judgment that reflects the now-invalid enhancement, which should trigger a notice from CDCR to the court that the defendant appears to be eligible for a full resentencing under section 1172.75.)

Although it is not reflected in the abstract for judgment, the minute order from the defendant’s sentencing reflects that the trial court imposed but stayed the one-year prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b). The California Supreme Court recently held that, in this circumstance, a defendant is entitled to recall and resentencing under section 1172.75(a) to have the stayed prior prison term enhancement stricken and to receive a full resentencing at which the superior court must consider a broad range of factors, including changes in law that reduce sentences and postconviction factors that inure in the defendant’s favor.

We have no jurisdiction at this juncture to address the defendant’s eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.75. However, we direct the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the defendant’s sentence includes a one-year prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), that was imposed but stayed. Without this correction, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would be unable to satisfy its duty to identify and notify the sentencing court that the defendant is a person serving a term for a judgment that includes a section 667.5, former subdivision (b), enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000910

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract prepared following the hearing on the petition to recall the sentence under section 1172.75 does not reflect the court’s order updating the calculation of credit for time served, and it must be corrected accordingly.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment does not reflect defendant’s postsentence credits of more than 5,000 actual days announced by the court during the resentencing hearing. This is a clerical error. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time.

Authority:

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