Opinion
C056060
4-15-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY DAVID STANFIELD, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Defendant Jeffrey David Stanfield pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted two prior drug-related convictions. Consistent with his plea, defendant was sentenced to eight years in state prison and ordered to pay various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant argues that the abstract of judgment either contains a clerical error or the court imposed an unlawful sentence by imposing two drug program fees and two laboratory analysis fees.
The People concede the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error and agree we should order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.
At sentencing, the trial court indicated on the record that it would follow the sentencing recommendation made by the probation department. Consistent with that recommendation, the court imposed various fines including a single $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee pursuant to section 11372.5, subdivision (a), and a single $150 drug program fee pursuant to section 11372.7, subdivision (a). These fees are properly listed in paragraph eight of the abstract of judgment; however, the fees are duplicated in paragraph five.
The abstract of judgment is thus inconsistent with the courts oral pronouncement of sentence. The oral pronouncement of sentence controls where it is at variance with the minute order or the abstract of judgment. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [pronouncement of judgment is a judicial function, while entry into the minutes and abstract of judgment is a clerical function; thus, any inconsistency is presumed to be clerical error]; People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123 [appellate court has authority to correct such clerical errors].) We therefore accept the Peoples concession and will order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.
Defendant acknowledges another error in the abstract of judgment. The trial court ordered defendant to pay $25 pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a) (State Court Facilities Construction Fund). Paragraph 8 of the abstract of judgment nevertheless indicates the court ordered the defendant to pay only $20 pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a). The court appreciates defendants bringing such an error to the courts attention. To demonstrate to defendant that honesty is the best policy, we will not order the abstract amended in this respect.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment as follows: In paragraph 5, uncheck the box for the $50 "Lab Fee per HS 11372.5(a)" as well as the box for the $150 "Drug Program Fee per HS 11372.7(a)." The trial court is further directed to send a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
HULL, J.
ROBIE, J. --------------- Notes: Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.