Opinion
B330332
09-30-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER JOVANI CABRERA, Defendant and Appellant.
Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SA107743), Christopher W. Dybwad, Judge.
Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite in detail the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
COLLINS, J.
On January 10, 2023, at approximately 6:20 p.m., appellant Christopher Cabrera was in the men's section of a Nordstrom department store in Santa Monica. He approached a sales associate to ask about using a fitting room to try on shirts. After being in the fitting room for about ten minutes, Cabrera came out of the fitting room, told the sales associate that he had started a fire in the fitting room, and said the associate should call police. The associate saw smoke coming from the fitting room area, and called security. Cabrera evacuated the store with the other patrons and employees, and remained in the area until police arrived. The store was damaged by the fire and by water from the sprinkler system.
The People charged Cabrera with one count of felony arson under section 451, subdivision (c) (count 1), and one count of felony vandalism under section 594, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1) (count 2). In a bench trial in May 2023, the court found Cabrera guilty on both counts.
The trial court sentenced Cabrera to the low term of two years in state prison on count 1. For count 2, the court stated, "And then as to Count 2, the Court will sentence eight months con- -- no. Court's simply going to stay 654 although 16 months concurrent with the principal term." The court's minute order stated that the sentence on count 2 was stayed under section 654, but it also stated, "As to count 2: Defendant is sentenced to 16 months state prison. The court selects the low term of 16 months. *Concurrent with principle [sic] term." The abstract of judgment stated that the sentence on count 2 was stayed.
On appeal, Cabrera asserts that the sentence on count 2 was required to be stayed under section 654, which "precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct." (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294.) He acknowledges that the court may have intended to stay the sentence on count 2, but asserts that the "sentencing record appears somewhat unclear, requiring clarification." The People agree that the sentence in count 2 should be stayed under section 654, and that "in an abundance of caution this Court could order the minutes corrected to strike any reference to the sentence being imposed concurrently."
Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts may order the correction of errors in sentencing records. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) We therefore order the trial court to correct its record to make clear that the sentence in count 2 is stayed pursuant to section 654, and that it does not run concurrent to the sentence in count 1.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court to issue an order clarifying that Cabrera's sentence for count 2 is stayed pursuant to section 654. The abstract of judgment shall not be changed. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
We concur: CURREY, P.J. ZUKIN, J.