Category Archives: Abstracts and Minutes

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000707

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct section the defendant was convicted of.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment erroneously lists count 11 as subdivision (b)(2) rather than subdivision (a)(2) of section 136.1. We direct the clerk of the superior court to issue a corrected abstract.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for the principle that the appellate court may order correction of the abstract of judgment, but there are many cases the court could have cited. I have set forth some for your convenience.)

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

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

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Gary Musings, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000701 and Gary Musings

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred when it failed to order joint and several liability for the victim’s restitution. The co-defendant was tried separately and sentenced by a different judge in an earlier proceeding.

First Holding:

In the co-defendant’s proceedings, the court ordered joint and several liability for the victim’s restitution, but in sentencing the defendant in this proceeding, the court (a different judge) made no mention of joint and several liability. A joint and several direct victim restitution order under section 1202.4(f) is not expressly permitted by statute, but is also not prohibited. The trial court therefore has discretion to make the obligation of multiple codefendants joint and several.

Authority:

People v. Arnold (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800

People v. Madrana (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1049, 1051–1052

Second Holding:

A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for the actual loss he or she incurred; however, it is not intended to provide the victim with recovery greater than that amount. When multiple defendants are culpable, the issue of double recovery is avoided when the trial court holds codefendants jointly and severally liable for the full amount of a crime victim’s economic loss.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172

People v. Fortune (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 790, 794–795

People v. Leon (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 620, 622 [a court may impose liability on each defendant to pay the full amount of the economic loss, as long as the victim does not obtain a double recovery]

Third Holding:

An abstract of judgment may be modified to reflect that the victim restitution order is a joint and several obligation.

Authority:

People v. Cornejo (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 36, 43

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800–801 [ordering modification of the judgment to expressly state that the restitution order is joint and several as to the defendant and the codefendant]

People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535 [to avoid double recovery, appellate court modified judgment to provide expressly that the direct victim restitution ordered is joint and several]

Fourth Holding:

As a matter of equity, and because there is no double recovery, the matter should be remanded so that the court can modify the restitution order to make liability joint and several. Section 1202.46 confers continuing jurisdiction to modify an order for victim restitution.

Authority:

PEN 1202.46

People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535

Gary Musings, Triggered By Third Holding:

Gary Musings note: I think the “Third Holding” and the authorities cited by the court demonstrate a prime example of the importance of reading the cases cited, and do not simply rely on what I have written in these summaries. A critical component of this decision that causes me pause is that the trial court did NOT make an order for joint and several liability; it apparently made no comment on it at all. This is not a case where the record shows that the court did so order but the order didn’t get reported properly in the abstract of judgment or minute order. It is not a case where the judge made comments indicating an intent to order joint and several liability, but the order was not expressed by the court. This is a case where the judge simply gave no indication at all regarding joint and several liability with the co-defendant who had been sentenced in a different proceeding.

First, I do not doubt that the Court of Appeal has the authority to modify the judgment OR the abstract of judgment. Section 1260 states, “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.”

But if I had submitted a brief that relied on the Cornejo, Neely, and Blackburn cases as authority for the court to actually change a judgment by ordering modification of the abstract of judgment, I think I could legitimately expect the opposition to point out the following rebuttals.

(A.) One cannot tell from the Cornejo decision whether the trial court had ordered joint and several liability but it wasn’t reflected in the abstract, or whether the trial court was silent and the appellate court simply modified the judgment by modifying the abstract (which is what happened in this Case 000701). Thus, we cannot determine whether the modification simply recorded the actual order in the abstract of judgment or the appellate modified the judgment. We don’t know.

(B.) In Neely, the trial court DID order joint and several liability, and the abstract simply did not reflect that, so the appellate court ordered the abstract amended to reflect what the trial court ordered. (That is NOT what happened in this Case 000701.)

(C.) In Blackburn–a case somewhat similar to this Case 000701 in that both defendants were sentenced at different times–the appellate court concluded that the trial court DID intend joint and several liability. Blackburn said, “The trial court had the authority to order direct victim restitution paid by both defendants jointly and severally. It seems glaringly obvious that is what it did here. In this light, there is no double recovery; nor is Jackson entitled to have Blackburn’s restitution obligation credited against his. Of course, each defendant is entitled to a credit for any actual payments by the other. To make sure this is clear (though out of an excess of caution), we will modify the judgment so as to provide expressly that the direct victim restitution ordered is joint and several.”

In other words, Blackburn approached it by clarifying what was “glaringly obvious”–that the trial court actually did order joint and several liability.

I think this points out the importance of actually reading the cases that you, as the defense attorney, intend to rely on, AND of actually reading the cases that your opposition cites.

And don’t stop there. Suppose Case 000701 was actually a published opinion, and you wanted to rely on it to get the appellate court in your client’s case to modify the abstract of judgment. If all you cited was the published decision in People v. Case 000701, you MIGHT prevail. But if your opposing party delved deeper, it could respond with an argument discounting the authority of People v. Case 000701, because Case 000701 (arguably) relied on cases that were not authority because they really did not have the same situation as People v. Case 000701. Remember the appellate principle: A case is not authority for propositions not considered. (People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480).

 

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000695

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected in two respects: First, the abstract of judgment states the trial court imposed a five-year sentence for the section 12022(a)(1) firearm enhancement. But the jury was not asked to, and did not, find that the defendant was armed with a firearm in the commission of the robbery. Second, the abstract of judgment states the trial court imposed a five-year sentence for the count 2 robbery conviction. But at the oral pronouncement of sentence, the court doubled that term to 10 years because of the prior strike.

First Holding:

An appellate court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records to reflect the true facts, including the oral judgments of judicial officers. We agree such correction of the record is appropriate. The abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect a firearm enhancement was never imposed on the count 2 robbery and the sentence on that count is 10 years.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186–187

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000693

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentencing minutes must be corrected to reflect the orally pronounced sentence.

First Holding:

The court imposed the middle term, to be served in the local jail. The trial court did not orally pronounce any restrictions on the defendant’s custodial sentence. On the trial court’s sentencing minutes, a box is checked next to the phrase “no early release of any type authorized,” and there are handwritten notations stating, “NO CPAC/NO WORK FURLOUGH.” [CPAC refers to the “County Parole and Alternative Custody Unit.”] The abstract of judgment does not reflect these restrictions.

In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment. In the event of a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and a minute order or an abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

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

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

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]

Second Holding:

The reporter’s transcript of the sentencing hearing includes no explicit indication that the trial court was foreclosing the possibility of custody-alternative programs or early release. The clerk’s sentencing minutes imposing such restrictions therefore conflict with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. It follows that we must correct the discrepancy by ordering the trial court to modify the minute order.

Authority:

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388 [striking sentencing conditions included in the clerk’s minutes that were not orally pronounced]

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case 000689

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution fine is more than 10 years old and must be vacated. The abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and must be corrected.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. At resentencing, the trial court found defendant indigent and waived any non-mandatory fines and fees. Once the trial court found defendant indigent, the court operations and conviction assessments were no longer mandatory. They were, therefore, waived by the court.

The abstract of judgment nevertheless includes a court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8) totaling $560 and a conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373) totaling $420. Because the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, we will order it corrected.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 14-15

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

Second Holding:

The restitution fine was imposed more than 10 years ago and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000687

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the defendant did not have the ability to pay the Court Security Fee of $40 or the Criminal Conviction Fee of $30. But the court’s minute order and abstract of judgment both reflect that the trial court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, sec. 1465.8) and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373). The minute order and abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the actual judgment.

Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. We have the authority to correct such clerical errors.

Authority:

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–389

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000683

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment misidentifies the statute under which the court sentenced the defendant on count four. The sentence of six years, eight months was pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53(c), but the abstract of judgment states the sentence was pursuant to subdivision (d) of that section. We will direct the trial court to correct these clerical errors.

Holding:

Appellate courts may order corrections when an abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the oral judgment of the trial court.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000676

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains errors that must be corrected.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment does not reflect the additional custody credits [more than 2600 days or the fines ($300 restitution and parole revocation restitution) ordered by the court. Instead, the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a $5,000 restitution fine and a $5,000 parole revocation restitution fine. It also incorrectly reflects defendant’s total credits as [less than 750] days.

[Gary note: The court did not list any authorities in support of its order for the correction of the abstract of judgment, but there is plenty available had it seen the need. I set forth some below:]

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 000670

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of one count of felony vandalism and one count of misdemeanor vandalism. The court purported to sentence the defendant to a total of three years, with appellant ordered to serve 270 days in county jail and the balance of the three years time on mandatory supervision (a “split sentence”). This was error, because the concept of split sentence applies to felonies only, and the misdemeanor was not subject to mandatory supervision.

First Holding:

Under the Realignment Act, qualifying low-level felony offenders no longer serve their sentences in state prison. Instead, such offenders serve their sentences either entirely in county jail or partly in county jail and partly under the mandatory supervision of the county probation officer. Pursuant to section 1170(h)(5)(B), the court has discretion to impose a hybrid sentence consisting of county jail followed by a period of mandatory supervision. This option is only available for felony convictions.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1418-1419

People v. Catalan (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 173, 178

Second Holding:

As reflected in the court’s oral pronouncement and the corresponding minute order, the court “split” the total three-year sentence for both counts, imposing 270 days of jail time and the balance as mandatory supervision.

While respondent points to the subsequent nunc pro tunc order purporting to place appellant on two years of formal probation, a nunc pro tunc order is generally limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot declare that something was done that was not done.

The record indicates that at least some portion of the court’s order imposing mandatory supervision applied to the misdemeanor conviction. As mandatory supervision under section 1170(h)(5)(B) is only applicable to felony convictions, we must remand for resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

People v. Borja (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 481, 485

Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 243, 256

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000668

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is unclear whether the court intended to impose as the base term the low term of 16 months or the middle term of two years, we remand for the court to clarify its intended sentence, as well as to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the court stated it was imposing the low term, two years in prison. It doubled that term as it was a two-strikes sentence, and added three years for an injury enhancement, and stated the total sentence was seven years. The low term for the crime, however, carries a triad of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years. Thus, the low term is 16 months, and two years is the middle term.

The matter must be remanded for the court to clarify whether it intended to impose the low term (in which case the sentence must be recalculated) or the middle term (in which case the sentence will remain the same as orally pronounced as two years doubled plus three years for the enhancement for a total of seven years).

We stress that, if the court indeed intended to impose the seven-year total sentence based on the middle term of two years, doing so was not an abuse of the court’s discretion considering the relevant sentencing factors considered by the court on the record. A sentence based on the low term of 16 months would also not be an abuse of the court’s sentencing discretion.

Authority:

People v. Sarmiento-Zuniga (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1216, 1226 [trial court does not abuse its discretion by imposing the presumptive middle term rather than the low term where the court sets forth on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed at time of sentencing, and that decision does not fall outside the bounds of reason under applicable law and relevant facts]

Second Holding:

Though the conviction was by plea, no certificate of cause is required for the defendant to raise his challenges to the sentence in this case. Section 1237.5 provides a defendant may not appeal from a guilty or no contest plea without a certificate of probable cause for an appeal based on reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. Even without a certificate of probable cause, a defendant may nonetheless appeal issues related to post-plea matters, such as the sentence, that do not challenge the plea’s validity.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

However, even when a defendant purports to challenge only the sentence imposed, a certificate is required if the challenge goes to an aspect of the sentence to which the defendant agreed as an integral part of a plea agreement, as such a claim is, in substance, a challenge to the validity of the plea. Thus, where a defendant enters a negotiated plea in which the parties agree the court will impose a specific, agreed-upon sentence, any challenge to that sentence is a challenge to the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause.

(Gary note: This is a direct appeal from the original sentencing. It should not be confused with an appeal from a resentencing under one of the recent ameliorative provisions, such as 1172.75. Where it is an appeal from such a resentencing, it is important to review section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, which states in subdivision (c)(3) that “Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” I have not seen any instances in which there was discussion of the need for a certificate of probable cause in appeals from decisions in the ameliorative provisions context, but section 1171(c)(3) seems to me to specifically address (and countermand) those aspects of the Stamps decision regarding setting aside the plea.

(I would argue that Stamps also would not be authority to require a certificate of probable cause to appeal a ruling on the application of ameliorative provisions where there was a stipulated sentence, given the legislation that, in essence, not only doesn’t challenge the plea agreement, it specifically states that application of the ameliorative provisions will not result in the setting aside of the plea itself. As I said, I have not noticed the question of certificates of probable cause in appeals from hearings involving ameliorative sections such as–but not limited to–1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. See my comment in case 000532 for a more extensive discussion on section 1171, including the observation that the Supreme Court transferred a case with a Stamps issue back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to consider the impact of the then-recently added section 1171.)

Authority:

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

People v. Hurlic (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 50, 55

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79

Fourth Holding:

By contrast, a certificate of probable cause is not required to challenge the exercise of individualized sentencing discretion within an agreed maximum sentence, absent contrary provisions in the plea agreement, as long as the defendant is not challenging the trial court’s authority to impose a sentence within a negotiated lid or maximum.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790

People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 763

Fifth Holding:

No certificate of probable cause is needed to challenge a court’s failure to strike a prior strike where striking a strike would still result in a sentence that falls within the range contemplated by the plea.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 872

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790-791, 777, 786-787

Sixth Holding:

The abstract must also be corrected to remove the notation “YTL” (for “years to life”), as no indeterminate life term was imposed in this case.

(Gary note: The court listed no authority for that correction, but there is plenty it could have relied on, some of which I list below.)

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, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000665

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand for resentencing in the earlier appeal, the court erred in refusing to conduct a full resentencing. It was also error for the court to impose the upper term on the gun use enhancement where the aggravating circumstances were not stipulated to or found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And the abstract of judgment must be amended to show that he was convicted of false imprisonment, not of kidnapping.

First Holding:

We consider a trial court’s sentencing decisions under an abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887

Second Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. That the appellate court gave specific directions on remand does not preclude a full resentencing hearing as required by Buycks. Because the judgment is no longer final, new statutes imposing new lighter penalties are deemed to be sufficient to apply upon resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 204

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 160, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

Third Holding:

Where, as here, a statute specifies three possible terms, the presumptive sentence is the middle term unless there are aggravating circumstances justifying imposition of the high term. The aggravating circumstance must be stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or, if jury is waived, by the court in a court trial.

The trial court acknowledged that a bifurcated trial would be necessary to find the aggravating circumstances true. Nevertheless it relied on our “very specific instructions” in declining to hold such a trial.

Where, as here, the record reflects no jury finding, no waiver thereof, and no admission by the defendant of the aggravating circumstances, the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating factors to impose an upper term sentence violates the Sixth Amendment.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 767–769

Fourth Holding:

The error is harmless only if a reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts relied upon by the sentencing court to justify the upper term. On this record we agree with the parties that we cannot draw such a conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761, 775

Fifth Holding:

We direct the trial court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment. The defendant was convicted of the offense of false imprisonment, a violation of Penal Code section 237, not kidnapping, a violation of Penal Code section 207.

(GARY Note: The court listed no authority for correction of erroneous abstracts, likely because the error and remedy are so obvious. But I have listed several cases that the court could have relied on.)

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, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000664

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the trial court to correct its minute order to accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of the travel ban probation condition.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a condition of probation that defendant was not to leave the state of California without the consent of the probation officer. However, the corresponding minute order lists the condition as “Do not leave California.” As such, the minute order does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of the court.

A court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Errors in the court’s minute orders are clerical errors that may be corrected at any time.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186