From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Clark

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Placer
Apr 1, 2009
No. C059316 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURRON MICHAEL EDWARD CLARK, Defendant and Appellant. C059316 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Placer April 1, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 6274070

RAYE, Acting P. J.

Defendant Curron Michael Edward Clark pled no contest to reckless driving, resisting an officer, and misdemeanor vandalism and was placed on probation.

The presentencing report recommended that the court impose various fines and fees, including a $20 state surcharge fee. (Pen. Code, § 1465.7.) But at sentencing, the court imposed only a state restitution fine, a probation revocation fine, and a court security fee of $20 (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and stated its intention “to strike the other basic fines and penalties and assessments.” However, the minute order entered after the sentencing hearing incorrectly recites that a $20 state surcharge fee was imposed pursuant to section 1465.7.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing the $20 state surcharge fee. The People correctly note that the reporter’s transcript reveals the trial court expressly refrained from imposing the fee and ask that we order the clerk’s minutes amended to conform to the court’s oral imposition of sentence.

We shall do so. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases may order correction to an abstract of judgment or clerk’s minute order of judgment that fails to accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of the sentencing court. (See People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to delete the reference to a $20 fee imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.7. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur: HULL J., BUTZ, J.


Summaries of

People v. Clark

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Placer
Apr 1, 2009
No. C059316 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURRON MICHAEL EDWARD CLARK…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Placer

Date published: Apr 1, 2009

Citations

No. C059316 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2009)