From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hill

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Apr 22, 2009
No. C060204 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM CLINTON HILL, Defendant and Appellant. C060204 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento April 22, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 08F03603

BUTZ, J.

In a negotiated plea bargain, defendant William Clinton Hill pleaded no contest to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted a prior strike and two prior felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to six years in state prison on the robbery, plus two one-year consecutive terms on the enhancements, for an aggregate term of eight years.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In a separate case, defendant was sentenced to three years for assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), to be served concurrently with the robbery conviction on this case. The other case has no bearing on this appeal.

At the sentencing hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine of $600 and a suspended parole revocation restitution fine of $600. However, both the minute order and abstract of judgment list the sum of $1,600 for each fine.

The court refers to the suspended fine as a “further restitution fine.” The proper designation is a “parole revocation restitution fine.” (§ 1202.45; People v. Taylor (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 433, 439.)

On appeal, defendant argues the abstract of judgment must be corrected to conform to the fine amounts orally pronounced by the court. The People concede the point and we shall order the correction.

Section 1202.4, subdivision (b) requires the court to impose a restitution fine when a person is convicted of a felony. The amount of the fine is set at the discretion of the court, but shall not be less than two hundred dollars ($200), and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Section 1202.45 provides that, where a sentence includes a period of parole, the court must impose a parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount as the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) fine, which fine is suspended unless parole is revoked.

Here, the trial court orally imposed fines in the sum of $600 each, but the minute order and abstract recite the amounts as $1,600 for each fine. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) This is because the pronouncement of judgment is a judicial function, while the entry into the minutes and the abstract of judgment is a clerical function; therefore, any inconsistency is presumed to be the result of clerical error. (Ibid.) Under our inherent authority to correct such clerical errors (People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123; People v. Anthony (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1125-1126), we shall order the court records modified to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.

DISPOSITION

The trial court shall correct its minute order and prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect restitution and parole revocation restitution fines in the amount of $600 each. A certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. So amended, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur: HULL, Acting P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Hill

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Apr 22, 2009
No. C060204 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM CLINTON HILL, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Apr 22, 2009

Citations

No. C060204 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)