AppellateAdvisor Law Library Background

Case Summaries

Welcome to the Appellate Advisor blog! Please feel free to scroll through the case summaries in chronological order, or search by keyword, category, or tags. It may be helpful to start with the Welcome Post.

Discretion, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000981

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying diversion after finding that the defendant is NOT likely to commit a super strike offense.

We reverse the judgment and direct the court to vacate its order denying mental health diversion and enter a new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the motion.

First Holding:

The defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appealed the denial of his motion for mental health diversion. Appeal lies from the judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5 [appeal may be taken after a no contest plea if the court issues a certificate of probable cause]

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Second Holding:

We review the diversion denial order for abuse of discretion, meaning the decision is arbitrary or capricious, applied the wrong legal standard, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Third Holding:

The diversion law promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. The potentially ameliorative benefit for criminal defendants who suffer from a qualifying mental disorder is balanced against protecting public safety. The law is intended to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 630-631

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Fourth Holding:

A defendant charged with a felony may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources” for up to two years. If the defendant performed satisfactorily in diversion, at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the initial diversion.

In other words, the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred. If the defendant performs unsatisfactorily in a treatment program or engages in criminal conduct, the court may reinstate criminal proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(ii) and (C)(i), (g), and (h)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631

Fifth Holding:

A defendant is eligible for diversion if a mental health expert diagnoses the defendant with a qualifying mental disorder that was a significant factor in commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if

(1) the expert opines that the defendant would respond to treatment;

(2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b) and (c)

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452

Sixth Holding:

The only disputed issue in this appeal is public safety. The Legislature defined “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” by incorporating section 1170.18. Section 1170.18(c) defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony listed in section 667. The relevant violent felonies in section 667 are super strikes. Burglary–the charge the defendant faced–is not a super strike.

Courts limit discretion to deny diversion on “public safety” grounds to instances where a defendant is likely to commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–450

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1151

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 121

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 798–799

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 690–691

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 83, 87–88

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 454–455

Seventh Holding:

The Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it amends a statute. The Legislature amended section 1001.36 seven times between 2022 and 2026 without eliminating the reference to section 1170.18, despite the decisions cited above, which require a finding that the defendant poses a risk of committing super strikes.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1062

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 743

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

Eighth Holding:

Beginning in 2027, courts applying section 1001.36 will no longer use the old definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” from section 1170.18. Instead, they will apply a new standard: “substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person.” Regardless of the forthcoming changes to section 1001.36, the version of the law applying to this defendant required a super strike finding.

The trial court found he did not pose a risk of committing super strikes, only that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing further residential burglaries. The court could not deny diversion based on a risk the defendfant will commit burglaries, thereby discounting the need to find public safety is imperiled by likely super strike offenses. The Legislature has specifically defined what constitutes ‘an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ under the statute, limiting it to the danger the defendant will commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 455

Ninth Holding:

Courts recognize “residual discretion” to deny diversion. However, while it is clear a trial court retains residual discretion to deny diversion even if all the threshold requirements are met, that does not mean, as the court suggested here, that it could reject a request for diversion based on an alternative meaning of public safety inconsistent with the specific statutory definition in section 1001.36(c)(4). In the guise of exercising its residual discretion, a court is not permitted to redefine public safety in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed intent.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Tenth Holding:

Reasons the court might exercise discretion to deny diversion include lack of a treatment program; a defendant’s history of failed treatment or misconduct in prior programs; or the availability of a better program for the defendant’s needs.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 457

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 889–890

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000980

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment reflects the wrong section for what the defendant was convicted of, and must be corrected.

Holding:

There are clerical errors in the abstract of judgment. Section 1 incorrectly indicates that for count 3, the defendant was convicted under section 451b) for the crime of arson of an inhabited structure or property. For that count, the jury actually convicted the defendant of arson of property of another pursuant to section 451(d). We will direct the superior court to correct both the code section and the description of the crime.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000979

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.75, the amended abstracts of judgment fail to correctly capture the court’s calculation of custody credits and disposition of fines and fees. The clerk’s minutes reflect the same errors.

We will order the abstracts of judgment and minute order corrected to reflect the defendant’s [more than 10,000] additional days of actual credit and the trial court’s waiver of the restitution and parole revocation fees.

Holding:

Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000978

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose the normal base term for several of his offenses in addition to the life terms under the Three Strikes law for those same offenses. The court failed to update the credit for time served. And the abstract of judgment misidentifies a second degree robbery as in the first degree, and must be corrected.

First Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant’s current sentence includes prison prior term enhancements rendered invalid under section 1172.75(a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely the striking of newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

Second Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a penalty provision, not an enhancement. It is not an enhancement because it does not add an additional term of imprisonment to the base term. Instead, it provides for an alternate sentence (25 years to life) when it is proven that the defendant has suffered the requisite number of convictions, prior and present. (At least two prior serious felony convictions, and the current offense being a qualifying offense for invocation of Third Strike sentencing.)

Authority:

People v. Williams (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 733, 744

Third Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court pronounces an unauthorized sentence, the sentence may be set aside and is no bar to the imposition of a proper judgment thereafter, even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431–432

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21

Fifth Holding:

The trial court erred in failing to update his presentence credits at the time of resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Sixth Holding:

The amended abstract of judgment incorrectly lists the defendant’s conviction in count 3 as one for first degree robbery, when in fact the conviction should be identified as one for second degree robbery. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

(Gary note: Though the court discussed the need for amending the abstract of judgment for various reasons through the opinion, it did not cite authority for its order that it be corrected. There is plenty of authority available, of course. I have set out some cases the court could have drawn from, but there are undoubtedly many others.)

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

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000977

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the no-contact and stay-away orders imposed by the trial court as part of his prison sentence and as a condition of his parole following his conviction for petty theft and making criminal threats.

The Attorney General argues the defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the orders in the trial court.

We disagree and strike the no-contact and stay-away orders because the trial court lacked authority to issue them and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

Normally, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. In the sentencing context, we have applied the rule to claims of error asserted by both the People and the defendant.

We have, however, created a narrow exception to the waiver rule for unauthorized sentences or sentences entered in excess of jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852

Second Holding:

A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court. A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Third Holding:

The trial court did not have statutory authority to impose no-contact or stay-away orders in these circumstances. While there are statutory provisions that allow a trial court to impose no-contact and stay-away orders in other circumstances, for example, domestic violence cases, cases involving sexual assault of a minor, stalking cases, as a condition of probation, or during active criminal proceedings, there are no statutes specifically authorizing the trial court here to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as part of the defendant’s prison sentence or as a condition of his parole.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

PEN 1202.05(a)

PEN 646.9(k)

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 136.2

Fourth Holding:

Ponce rejected the argument that that trial courts, independent of statutes, have inherent authority to protect trial participants, citing both California and federal cases. It held that even if the trial court had relied on inherent judicial authority to issue its order, the result would not change.

An existing body of statutory law regulates restraining orders. Inherent powers should never be exercised in such a manner as to nullify existing legislation. Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.

The trial court here should have refrained from acting because there is an existing body of statutory law regulating no-contact and stay-away orders.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384

Fifth Holding:

The Legislature has adopted specific statutory provisions authorizing parole boards to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of parole. Under this statutory scheme, the victims here can request the parole board to include no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of the defendant’s parole.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a) authorizes trial courts to issue orders to protect against any threats or harassment after notice and hearing.

Therefore, because the Legislature already authorizes available procedures for no-contact and stay-away orders for the victims in this case, the trial court was not authorized to impose them under its inherent authority.

Authority:

PEN 3053.2(a) [the parole board must impose a no-contact order as a condition of parole if requested by the victim]

PEN 3053(a) [the parole board may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may deem proper]

CCP 527.6(a)

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court

Case 000976

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following the resentencing hearing on remand from the defendant’s earlier appeal, the minute order and the abstract of judgment fail to reflect the oral judgment, and each must be corrected.

First Holding:

The trial court was required to prepare an amended abstract of judgment showing the entirety of defendant’s sentence, including the fines, fees, and credits, imposed at the resentencing hearing.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The minute order states only that the trial court gave a ruling “as on the record” about the aggravating circumstances, without specifying the findings on the aggravating circumstances.

When the defendant waives a jury trial and is tried by the court, the court is required to announce its factual findings at the conclusion of the hearing, which shall be in substantially the form prescribed for the general verdict of a jury and shall be entered in the minutes.

The minute order must be amended to reflect those findings as required.

Authority:

PEN 1167

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000975

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed the law required it to impose consecutive sentences for every count.

First Holding:

Under section 667.61(i), consecutive sentences are mandatory only to offenses listed in section 667.61(c), paragraphs (1) through (7). The crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty is described in 667.61(c), paragraph (8).

Thus, consecutive sentencing was not mandatory.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

Second Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

When a sentencing court was not aware of the full scope of its discretionary powers at the time the defendant was sentenced, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419

Third Holding:

The Attorney General argues that the defendant forfeited his sentencing contention by failing to object below to the court’s error, and that the defendant cannot show his counsel was ineffective for failing to object because it was not reasonably likely the court would have imposed anything less than the 150-year sentence that it did.

We exercise our discretion to reach the question, notwithstanding forfeiture.

Authority:

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003 [the trial court’s erroneous understanding that it had no discretion to impose concurrent sentences may fall within a narrow class of sentencing issues that are reviewable in the absence of a timely objection, and in any event, we would exercise our discretion to resolve the claim in the interests of fairness and judicial economy and to forestall unnecessary ineffective assistance of counsel claims.]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

Fourth Holding:

The trial court’s repeated references to section 667.61(i)’s requirement that it impose consecutive sentences leaves no doubt that the court here did not know it retained the discretion to impose concurrent sentences per victim.

The court provided no other reason for imposing consecutive sentences, including no comment that the aggravating factor warranted a maximum sentence or any similar comment.

We therefore cannot conclude that the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence if it had understood its full sentencing discretion. We accordingly remand the matter for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000974

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Punishment for the defendant’s conviction of the false imprisonment count must be stayed under section 654.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides 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.

Section 654 does not prevent multiple convictions for the same conduct, only multiple punishments for a single, indivisible course of action. A defendant can be punished for multiple offenses where a course of conduct is divisible, giving rise to more than one act.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

Second Holding:

To determine whether a course of conduct involving more than a single act is divisible for purposes of section 654, we consider whether the course of conduct included multiple intents and objectives.

If the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Third Holding:

However, even if there is but a single objective for a course of conduct, a temporal break between individual acts may subject them to multiple punishments. This is particularly so where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his or her intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken.

In assessing whether section 654 applies, the court may consider a number of factors, including whether the defendant had multiple sequential intents, as well as whether he had the opportunity to pause and reflect before continuing his course of action.

Authority:

People v. Andra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 638, 640

People v. Surdi (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 685, 689

Fourth Holding:

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. Its findings on this question must be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

Thus, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and uphold it if the record contains reasonable, credible evidence of solid value upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the conclusion in question.

Ultimately, if the trier of fact determines the crimes have different intents and motives, multiple punishments are appropriate.

Authority:

People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1312

People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450

People v. Saffle (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 434, 439

Fifth Holding:

We agree that defendant cannot be subjected to multiple punishments for the false imprisonment conviction and the second domestic violence conviction. In closing argument, the prosecutor clarified that defendant was charged with false imprisonment for grabbing the victim by her hair as she ran toward the door and pulling her back toward the stairs, where he committed an additional act of domestic violence.

The false imprisonment and second domestic violence offenses were both committed to facilitate one assaultive objective.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Sixth Holding:

As a result, the facts here are distinguishable from those in the cases relied upon by the Attorney General, where courts determined that section 654 did not require staying sentences for offenses committed after the other offense had already been completed.

Authority:

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162-163 [the defendant had essentially completed the robbery before committing assault; court could reasonably conclude that the defendant committed the assault with the intent and objective of preventing the victim from sounding the alarm about the murder]

People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 27 [false imprisonment not necessary or incidental to commission of robbery because the act of locking the victims in a store cooler occurred only after the robbers had obtained all the money]

Seventh Holding:

Therefore, we shall vacate the sentence and remand the matter for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379 [sec. 654 previously required court to impose sentence that provided for longest term of imprisonment, but now provides the trial court with discretion to impose sentence of either term]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate to allow court to exercise its discretion in light of changed circumstances]

Sentencing

Case 000973

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court sentenced the defendant to 15 years to life for deliberate and premeditated attempted murder. This sentence was incorrect as a matter of law.

First Holding:

Willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder is punishable by life with the possibility of parole. A defendant convicted of attempted murder cannot be paroled until he has served at least seven years of his sentence.

We modify the judgment to reflect a sentence on count 1 of seven years to life.

Authority:

PEN 664(a)

PEN 3045(a)(1)

People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 96 [Section 3046 sets the minimum term for a defendant convicted of premeditated attempted murder]

Second Holding:

The defendant is entitled to an additional day of custody credit.

Authority:

People v. Smith (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 523, 527 [sec. 2900.5 requires court to award credits for all days in custody up to and including the day of sentencing]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000972

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The $300 restitution fine the court imposed at the defendant’s resentencing must be vacated pursuant to section 1465.9(d), because more than 10 years have elapsed since the trial court imposed the original fine in 1996.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which provides that, 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.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

The restitution fine must be vacated because more than 10 years have elapsed since the original imposition of the fine, and reimposition of the fine in a different amount at a section 1172.75 resentencing does not restart section 1465.9(d)’s 10-year clock.

Authority:

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600–601 [under language of sec. 1465.9(d), resentencing does not restart the 10-year clock], review granted on different issue on Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000971

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution fines imposed more than 10 years prior to the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 must be vacated.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, 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.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

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