It’s nice to see magpies again. Several years ago they were pretty much wiped out by bird flu or something where I used to live. There were droves and droves of them, and then there weren’t. One of my favorite groups is a ten-member band called the Mad Maggies. I see them annually at the Cotati Accordion Festival.
I continue to be amazed at the frequency of errors in abstracts of judgment or minute orders or both. And most of the errors contain information that, if relied on by the custodial institutions or in support of some future enhancements or charges, work against the defendants’ interests. I do occasionally run across an abstract that understates the penalties imposed, because I review every unpublished criminal case that indicates a modification is necessary. I report only those that provide a positive result for the defendant’s record of conviction, but they far outnumber the few that erroneously benefit a defendant.
Out of nearly 400 cases I have summarized so far since I started collecting cases for this blog, nearly 19% have required correction of the abstracts and/or minute orders in some respect that favors the individuals. It’s possible that no one in power looks at them, I suppose, so maybe the errors are harmless.
I don’t happen to believe that, of course, How would the prison or jail folks know how long to keep a prisoner if they don’t read the documents that purportedly report the sentence? How would they know whether money has to be deducted from the prisoner’s wages, and how much? How would they know how much credit for time served (actual and conduct credits) must be applied toward the projected release date? And the abstract of judgment is important evidence supporting enhancements or alternative sentencing schemes in a defendant’s future cases. They can make a difference between a court imposing a life term under the Three Strikes Law or simply the choice from the normal triad available for the current conviction.
I just keep feeling stronger and stronger about my advice that we need to check the abstracts of judgment as soon as we can.
Today we have somewhat of a shortened “to-go” menu. Whew!
Summary
Yet another abstract of judgment needs correction, as it was off by at least three years for the date of the judgment.
Though Rhodius concluded that section 1172.75 was available where the enhancement for the prior prison term was imposed but stayed, it left open whether it applies if the prior prison term was actually stricken. Today we have an unpublished opinion says yes, relying on a case that is pending in the Supreme Court.
The appellate court ordered the trial court to vacate any portion of various fees that were repealed.
Case: 000116
We did find an error in the abstract of judgment, which we will direct the trial court to correct. Whether the trial court clerk intended to record the date of the verdict or the date defendant was sentenced, the clerk failed to correctly record either. We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract accordingly.
Holding: The abstract of judgment was incorrect. It reflected the day of the year that the verdict was entered, except in 2021 rather than 2024. The judgment itself was entered later in 2024. We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract accordingly. [See] People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [appellate court may order correction of clerical errors in the abstract of judgment]
Case: 000117
The defendant petitioned for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. Because punishments on his prison priors were stricken, the trial court ruled he was ineligible based on People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, which our high court recently reversed in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050. The question before us is whether section 1172.75 entitles the defendant to a resentencing hearing even though the enhancements were stricken for the purposes of sentencing. Rhodius explicitly did not reach this question. (Rhodius, at p. 1066, fn. 2.) We agree with defendant that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.
Holding: A pre-Rhodius case on point convincingly concluded that section 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were stricken at sentencing, not just those that are imposed but stayed at sentencing. [See] People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 (Espino); People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133; People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050
Case: 000118
The trial court’s judgment is modified to vacate any portions of the probation related fees imposed by the trial court as part of probation condition No. 14 that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021.
First Holding: Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) repealed the authority to collect various fees. (See Stats. 2020, ch. 92, secs. 11, 62.) The bill makes the unpaid balance of these fees unenforceable, uncollectible, and requires that any portion of a judgment imposing such fees be vacated. [See] PC 1465.9.
Second Holding: The defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of these ameliorative changes. [See] People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 680; People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 258