Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County Super. Ct. Nos. 08HF1100 & 08HF1374, Gregory W. Jones, Judge.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, and Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Sills, P. J., Rylaarsdam, J., and Moore, J.
As part of a plea bargain, the superior court orally sentenced appellant Geovanta Johnson to the low term of 16 months on count three. The court also sentenced her to 16 months each on two other counts, to run concurrently with the sentence on count three. But the abstract of judgment prepared by the clerk of the superior court fails to show the sentences are to run concurrent. As a result, line 8 of the abstract shows a total term of four years. Appellant complains the abstract must be corrected to reflect the judgment as orally pronounced.
It is a fundamental rule that the abstract of judgment may not be “different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize. [Citation.]” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Stated differently, when there is a conflict between the oral judgment and the abstract of judgment the oral judgment governs. In comparing the oral judgment with the abstract here, it is clear the abstract is different from and does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement.
The Attorney General filed a concession letter. After acknowledging the clerical mistake, he adds that, “To ensure appellant has the benefit of her correct sentence and that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can timely correct its records, respondent requests that the Court expedite its decision in this matter and respondent waives time to permit the court to immediately issue its remittitur upon filing its decision.” Appellant advises us that she too would request immediate issuance of the remittitur. Given appellant might be serving dead time on this conviction because of the clerk’s error, and given the appeal addresses a clerical error only, we treat the parties’ requests as a stipulation for early finality encompassed within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 8.366(b)(2)(B)) and therefore will direct immediate issuance of the remittitur.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the oral judgment and to forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation forthwith. The clerk of this court is directed to issue the remittitur immediately upon the filing of the opinion.