Opinion
G054467 c/w G054487
05-16-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL EDWARD HINERMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 14WF3307 & 15WF0725) OPINION Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed as modified. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
There is little to say here. The California Constitution provides that, "Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated." (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14.)
In this case, the parties agree the abstract of judgment fails to reflect the trial court's sentencing decision, and the court imposed an unlawful sentence on one of the counts. They are correct. Therefore, exercising our authority to correct these errors (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354), we modify the judgment as follows:
1.) In case No. 14WF3307, the abstract of judgment shall reflect that on count 1, appellant was sentenced to the midterm of two years and that pursuant to Penal Code section 654 such sentence was stayed, not concurrent; and
2.) In case No. 15WF0725, the abstract of judgment shall reflect that on count 2, appellant was sentenced to the midterm of three years and that pursuant to Penal Code section 654 such sentence was stayed, not concurrent.
The clerk of the trial court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these modifications and send a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J. GOETHALS, J.