Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 195509
Margulies, J.
Defendant Stanley Williams pleaded guilty to possession of crack cocaine and was pet on three years’ probation. Following defendant’s admission of a probation violation, the court reinstated his probation conditioned on serving an eight-month jail term with 35 days of custody credits. When orally pronouncing judgment, the court stipulated that defendant could, at his election, serve the balance of his jail term in an in-custody drug treatment program. The clerk’s minutes incorrectly stated that defendant’s participation in the drug treatment program was mandatory rather than voluntary. On appeal, defendant contends, and the People properly concede that the clerical record should be corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. We affirm the judgment as orally pronounced and remand the matter for correction of the minutes and related orders.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 20, 2004, the San Francisco Police Department conducted a “buy/bust operation” on Turk Street and Taylor Street in the Tenderloin. Defendant sold 1.02 grams of crack cocaine to an undercover officer. After the completion of the sale, the police arrested defendant and recovered $40 in marked currency from defendant’s hand.
This summary of the original offense is derived from the May 26, 2005 probation report.
Defendant was charged by complaint with the sale and transportation of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) The complaint further alleged that defendant committed the current offense while on probation (Pen. Code, § 1203.2, subd. (a)), was ineligible for another grant of probation (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(7)), suffered three prior drug-related convictions (Pen. Code, § 1203.07, subd. (a)(11); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11370, subds. (a) & (c), 11370.2), and served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On May 5, 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to violating Health and Safety Code section 11352. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted three years’ probation.
On October 10, 2006, the police arrested defendant for possessing cocaine and a crack pipe. The prosecution moved to revoke probation. On October 23, 2006, defendant admitted a probation violation and the trial court reinstated probation.
On November 8, 2006, the police located defendant on Turk Street and Taylor Street, performed a warrantless search, and found cocaine on his person. The prosecution again moved to revoke probation. On December 12, 2006, the trial court reinstated probation and ordered defendant to serve eight months in county jail, preferably in the Roads to Recovery program.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
During the December 12, 2006 sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered defendant to serve eight months in county jail with 35 days of custody credits and the balance to be served in the Roads to Recovery program. Immediately following the grant of probation, the trial court clarified that defendant’s participation in the Roads to Recovery program was discretionary. The sentencing minutes fail to reflect that defendant’s participation in the Roads to Recovery program was to be discretionary, as stated at sentencing.
The People properly concede that the court’s oral pronouncement prevails over the entry made in the clerk’s minutes and that the record may be corrected at any time to reflect the true facts. (See People v. Wilshire Ins. Co. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 521, 532–533.)
III. DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment and remand the matter for correction of the December 12, 2006 minute order, minutes, and commitment order to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment that defendant’s participation in the Roads to Recovery program is voluntary rather than mandatory.
We concur: Marchiano, P.J., Swager, J.