1

Filed 6/26/24 P. v. Humphrey CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JONATHON URIAH HUMPHREY,

Defendant and Appellant.

C099731

(Super. Ct. No. 21FE009220)

In 2021, defendant Jonathon Uriah Humphrey1 got into a fight with the victim. 

After getting the victim on the ground, defendant crushed his skull by stepping on it. The 

prosecution charged defendant with murder and alleged a prior serious felony conviction. 

The trial court denied defendant’s Marsden motion. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 

1 Defendant’s name is listed different ways throughout the record. While the 

abstract of judgment lists defendant’s name as “Jonathan Uriah Humphrey,” the minute 

orders, felony complaint, and notice of appeal use “Jonathon Uriah Humphrey.” We use 

the latter name in this opinion. 
2

2 Cal.3d 118.) Defendant pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted his 

prior strike offense and an aggravating circumstance. The trial court sentenced defendant 

to the upper term of 11 years, doubled to 22 years due to the prior strike. When imposing 

fines and fees at the sentencing hearing, the court said, “I will impose the Government 

Code [s]ection 70373.5 [assessment]. That will be $40.” The minute order from the 

sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment list the criminal conviction assessment as 

$30 pursuant to Government Code section 70373. 

Defendant appeals. Defendant applied for permission to seek a certificate of 

probable cause in the trial court. We denied the application. 

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural 

history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there 

are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant 

was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the 

date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not 

filed a supplemental brief.

As noted above, there is a discrepancy in the record as to the amount of the 

criminal conviction assessment. Given defendant’s single conviction, the correct amount 

is $30 as indicated in the minute order and the abstract of judgment. (See Gov. Code, 

§ 70373, subd. (a)(1) [“The assessment shall be imposed in the amount of thirty dollars 

($30) for each misdemeanor or felony”].) The trial court also misstated which statute 

authorizes this assessment, citing to Government Code section 70373.5 instead of section 

70373. Though ordinarily the trial court’s oral pronouncement controls, under these 

circumstances, we will deem the minute order and the abstract of judgment to prevail 

over the reporter’s transcript. (See People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 768; 

People v. Thompson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 974, 978.) The erroneous amount and

misstated authority in the reporter’s transcript are of no effect.
3

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find 

no arguable errors favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ 

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/ 

DUARTE, J.

/s/ 

WISEMAN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.