Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. NCR69680
SIMS, Acting P.J.Defendant Richard Mark Cordero had several drinks at a friend’s house and then drove a friend into town. On the way, defendant struck a pedestrian, who tumbled over the hood of the car and onto the ground where he lay bleeding heavily from the head. Although defendant did not stop, nor did he report the incident to the authorities, his passenger contacted police the next day to tell them what happened. Defendant’s car was located at a muffler and glass shop shortly thereafter. The windscreen was broken inward on the driver’s side and scraps of cloth and human hair were found amongst the shards. Defendant called police two days after the incident and denied any involvement, but said he intended to surrender “in a couple of days after spending time with his family.” Defendant was arrested later that day.
By amended information, defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a) -- Count I), driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a) -- Count II) and reckless driving with great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23104, subd. (b) -- Count III). As to Counts I and II, the information specially alleged great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)), great bodily injury causing brain injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (b)), four prior serious or violent felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subd. (a) & 667, subds. (b) - (i)) and five separate prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
After conducting a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), the court denied defendant’s request to substitute counsel.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to all counts. He admitted special allegations of great bodily injury and great bodily injury causing brain injury as to Count I, and admitted one prior strike allegation as to Counts I and II. Defendant also admitted four prior convictions. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, defendant stipulated to a prison term of 23 years.
Consistent with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to 23 years in prison, awarded him 32 days of presentence custody credit and imposed a restitution fine of $4,600 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a parole revocation fine of $4,600 (stayed) under Penal Code section 1202.45. The court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court 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.
Our review of the record reveals an error in the abstract of judgment. Section 11 of the abstract reflects, among other things, a fine of $2,162. The court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, however, makes no reference to such fine.
“‘Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement.’ Entering the judgment in the minutes being a clerical function [citation], a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error. Nor is the abstract of judgment controlling. ‘The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction. By its very nature, definition and terms [citation] it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.)
Because the $2,162 fine was not orally pronounced, it is not part of the judgment and should not have been included in the abstract of judgment. (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388.) Accordingly, we shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [appellate courts may order correction of abstract of judgment that does not accurately reflect the oral judgment of the sentencing court].)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment by deleting the $2,162 fine. The court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: RAYE, J., ROBIE, J.