From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Zamudio

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 20, 2012
H036944 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2012)

Opinion

H036944

01-20-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SERGIO ZAMUDIO, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS091892

Defendant Sergio Zamudio entered a negotiated guilty plea to assault with a deadly weapon and participation in a criminal street gang. In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court imposed a $200 restitution fine and a $200 suspended parole revocation fine. The abstract of judgment, however, states that those fines are $800 each. On appeal, defendant contends that the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error that should be corrected. The People concede the issue and we agree that the concession is appropriate. We therefore affirm the judgment with directions to correct the abstract of judgment.

REMEDY

The record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk's minute order. (People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2.) "Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts . . . that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts." (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Defendant asked the trial court to correct its error by letter dated August 10, 2011, but there is no record of a response to his request. We therefore must order the trial court to correct the error. When there is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment, "the appellate court itself should order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment." (Id. at p. 188.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the restitution fine and suspended parole revocation fines are $200 each.

_______________

Premo, J.

WE CONCUR:

_______________

Rushing, P.J.

_______________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.


Summaries of

People v. Zamudio

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 20, 2012
H036944 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Zamudio

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SERGIO ZAMUDIO, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 20, 2012

Citations

H036944 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2012)