Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS082262
McAdams, J.
Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the $200 restitution fines that were actually imposed by the court at sentencing under Penal Codesections 1202.4 and 1202.45. The Attorney General concedes error and joins in the request to correct the abstract. We accept the concession. This court will modify the judgment to correct the abstract and affirm the judgment as modified.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
By separate order, we will deny defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On September 1, 2008, defendant was found in possession of five counterfeit bills. He attempted to pass at least one of those bills. On September 10, 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to forgery and admitted that he had suffered a prior “strike” conviction. (§§ 475, subd. (a), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) That same day, he was sentenced to four years in state prison in accordance with the agreed-upon disposition. Pursuant to that disposition, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of “$200 that will go along with you, plus $200 stayed pending successful completion of parole.” Despite this clear oral pronouncement, the minute order reflects that the court ordered a restitution fine of “$200 multiplied by the number of years of imprisonment, multiplied by the number of Felony counts,” which would be $800 ($200 x 4 years x 1 count). The abstract of judgment reflects fines of $400 each imposed under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45.
Ordinarily, the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment will prevail over the minute order or abstract of judgment prepared by the court’s clerk. (People v. Gardner (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 42, 50, fn. 8.) However, “[i]t may be said... as a general rule that when … the record is in conflict it will be harmonized if possible; but where this is not possible that part of the record will prevail, which, because of its origin and nature or otherwise, is entitled to greater credence [citation]. Therefore whether the recitals in the clerk’s minutes should prevail as against contrary statements in the reporter’s transcript, must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.” (People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599, internal quotation marks omitted.) We agree with the parties that, in this case, the reporter’s verbatim transcript cannot be reconciled with the competing notations in the clerk’s transcript, and that the reporter’s transcript should prevail as the most accurate. Furthermore, we agree that the most expeditious manner of resolving this issue is for this court to order the abstract of judgment to be corrected.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the trial court’s unambiguous oral imposition of $200 in restitution fines at sentencing prevails over the court clerk’s minute order, and the abstract of judgment, reflecting orders of $800 per fine, and $400 per fine, respectively.
DISPOSITION
The superior court is ordered to modify the abstract of judgment to reflect fines of $200 each under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., Mihara, J.