Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. CM028278 & CM021509
SCOTLAND, P. J.
After she was caught taking merchandise worth $285 from JC Penney’s store without paying, defendant Amanda Sue Nelson pled no contest in case No. CM028278 to petty theft committed after she already had a prior conviction for theft (Pen. Code, § 666), and to committing the crime while on probation in case No. CM021509 for a theft conviction.
The trial court designated the conviction in case No. CM028278 as the principal term and sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years, plus a subordinate term of eight months (one-third the middle term) in case No. CM021509.
On appeal, defendant contends, and the People concede, the abstract of judgment fails to reflect all of the custody credits awarded by the trial court. The reporter’s transcript of the sentencing hearing on March 19, 2008, reflects the court accepted the probation officer’s recitation of custody credits as follows: “[T]otal local time of 92 days. Total state time of 240 days, for a total actual time of 332 days. We have [section] 4019 PC credits of 46 days, for a net total time of 378 days. The defendant can earn as many as 298 days on a 2 year 8 month mid term.” The court responded: “Just so the record is clear, the defendant has more than 240 days credits in the prior case, but any remaining credits are not carried over to the principal term in the new matter.”
The abstract of judgment omits any reference to defendant’s 240 days of “state time” credits, and it incorrectly indicates defendant received 138 total credits, comprised of 92 days of custody credit, plus 46 days of conduct credit.
In contrast, the minute order entered after the sentencing hearing correctly recites that “[d]efendant is credited with 378 total days to include: 92 days, local time[;] 46 days conduct credits[; and] 240 days state time.”
We agree with the parties and shall order the correction of this clerical error in the abstract. (See People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2 [oral pronouncement controls]; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186–187 [appellate court may correct clerical errors on its own motion or upon application of the parties]; see also People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.)
Defendant further contends the court erred in refusing her request at sentencing for an order that “the prison term on the subordinate count should have been deemed to have been served.” She relies on a part of Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (a), which states: “If the total number of days in custody exceeds the number of days of the term of imprisonment to be imposed, the entire term of imprisonment shall be deemed to have been served.”
Once the abstract of judgment has been corrected to reflect the trial court’s award of an additional 240 days of custody credit, defendant’s concern over whether her eight-month prison term on the subordinate offense shall have been “deemed to have been served” will be addressed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Defendant’s brief provides no authority for her suggestion the trial court was obliged to declare at sentencing that the subordinate term was deemed served.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect an additional 240 days of custody credit, for a total of 378 days of credit. The court is further directed to send a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: RAYE, J. BUTZ, J.