Category Archives: AppellateAdvisor Updates

Abstracts and Minutes, AppellateAdvisor Updates

Case 000985

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentencing minute order cites the statute for the firearm enhancement as section 12022.53(d), instead of section 12022.5(a). On remand, the trial court is therefore instructed to correct the sentencing minute order nunc pro tunc.

Holding:

The sentencing minute order from January 7, 2025 contains the same error contained in the original abstract of judgment, i.e., the statute for the firearm enhancement is cited as section 12022.53(d), instead of section 12022.5(a). While the abstract of judgment was subsequently corrected, there is nothing to indicate in the record that the sentencing minute order was also corrected. On remand, the trial court is therefore instructed to correct the sentencing minute order nunc pro tunc.

(Gary note: The court does not cite its authority to order correction of the minutes, likely because it’s so obvious, not to mention that it apparently had previously spotted the same error in the abstract of judgment and ordered its correction. For your convenience, I have listed a nonexclusive list of cases that the court could have chosen its authority 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

AppellateAdvisor Updates

Case 000970

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a total additional term of 30 years for the gun enhancements instead of 20 years. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

On remand, we direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect an enhancement of 20 years under section 12022.53, subdivision (c), and a stayed term under section 12022.53(b).

Holding:

The trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence is inconsistent with the judgment recorded: it imposed and stayed a 10-year term for the section 12022.53(b) enhancement, but the abstract of judgment imposed the term along with the 20-year term under section 12022.53(c).

When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, we have the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal. We accordingly order that the abstract of judgment be corrected to conform with the sentence that the trial court actually imposed.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

AppellateAdvisor Updates

Case 000766

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court miscalculated the credit for time served. The matter is remanded for recaculation. The court also failed to specify whether it was imposing consecutive or concurrent sentences for the three conviction offenses. On remand, it must specify that the terms are to be served concurrently.

First Holding:

The trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment did not specify whether the sentences for the three counts were to run concurrently or consecutively with respect to one another. This means that by default they all run concurrently.

Authority:

PEN 669(b)

People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 915

Second Holding:

The court erred in its calculation of credit for time served, and it must recalculate the credits on remand.

(Gary note: the court cited no authority, likely because the error and solution are obvious. I have listed the code section for your convenience.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

AppellateAdvisor Updates, Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000762

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss his conviction under section 1203.4 following his fulfillment of conditions of probation. The trial court concluded that the defendant was not eligible for relief as long as he had to register as a sex offender. The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for an erroneous reason without determining whether he fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire probation period. Therefore, the order denying the petition is reversed, and the trial court is directed to make that determination.

First Holding:

When a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, the defendant is entitled to have his conviction set aside and the case dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4(a)(1)

Second Holding:

This statutory provision is clear. If the defendant fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, the trial court shall allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information. Dismissal in this circumstance is mandatory.

Authority:

People v. Daffeh (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 790, 796

People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 892, fn. 6 [under section 1203.4, if the petitioner establishes either of the necessary factual predicates, the trial court is required to grant the requested relief]

Third Holding:

A person who has suffered a conviction specified in section 290 is required to register as a sex offender, notwithstanding dismissal of such conviction pursuant to 1203.4. But the duty to register as a sex offender does not make the person ineligible for relief under section 1203.4

Authority:

Doe v. Brown (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 408, 423

People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 287

People v. Hamdon (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1071, fn. 3 [Section 290.007 expressly precludes relief from the sex offender registration requirement for persons whose convictions are dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4]

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 996 [same]

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant has not fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation or been discharged prior to the termination of the probation period, the court still has discretion to grant relief in the interests of justice.

Authority:

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991