Opinion
C051116
12-1-2006
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDOLPH BURTON BULLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Randolph Burton Bullock entered a negotiated plea of "guilty" to failing to register as a sex offender. The plea agreement stated the allegation defendant had a prior serious felony conviction would be dismissed and he would not be sentenced to state prison at the outset. Consistent with the agreement, defendant was placed on probation subject to various conditions, including that he serve 100 days in the county jail and complete 200 hours of community service.
Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief which sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
However, we note there are inconsistencies between the actual plea that defendant entered on the record in open court on August 23, 2005, and certain documents relating to his plea. The written change of plea form that was initialed and signed by defendant, and was filed on August 23, states, "I PLEAD GUILTY/NO CONTEST" to the charge of violating Penal Code section 290, subdivision (g)(2), but does not specify which plea would be entered. On the other hand, the "FELONY MINUTES, COMMITMENT, & CERTIFICATION" form, signed by defendant and filed on August 23, states he would plead "no contest" to the charge. And the court minute order for August 23, reflects that defendant pled "NO CONTEST" to the charge. But when asked by the judge how he would plead to the charge, defendant responded, "Im guilty . . . ." Thus, the probation report filed on October 18, 2005, correctly states that defendant "entered a Guilty Plea to Count I as alleged."
Where there is a discrepancy between the oral record of the proceedings and the courts minutes, the oral pronouncement of a plea controls, and a court has the inherent power to correct the clerical error without a request from a party. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-187.) Thus, we shall direct the trial court to correct the minute order to reflect that defendant pled "guilty," not no contest.
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the minute order of August 23, 2005, to show that defendant entered a plea of "guilty" to violating subdivision (g)(2) of Penal Code section 290, failing to register as a sex offender.
We concur:
SIMS, J.
DAVIS, J.