Filed 5 / 18 / 23 In re J.R. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. 2d Juv. No. B321260 (Super. Ct. No. 2021032620) (Ventura County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.R. appeals from an order adjudicating him a ward of the

court

. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 .) T he juvenile court sustained the allegation that he committed attempted murder (Pen. Code, 1 §§ 664 /187 ) , but did not find true the allegation that he

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

committed the crime with premeditation with in the meaning of
section 664

, subd ivision (a)

. J.R. contends

, and the Attorney
General concedes

, there is a discrepancy between the minute
order on the sustained petition and the court’s oral
pronouncement of judgment

. The Attorney General also notes an error in the court’s calculation of the aggregate maximum period
of confinement. We modify the minute order s to correct these

errors , but otherwise affirm the judgment

.

FACT UAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY E.C. was walking down the street with his girlfrie nd when he saw a group of people in front of an apartment building

. E.C. recognized J.R. as one of the people in the group. J.R. kneeled and began shooting at E.C. E.C. was shot as he was running

away. He survived.
The juvenile petition alleged one co unt of attempted
murder ( §§ 664/187 ) and further alleged the crime was committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation within the meaning of section 664, subdivision (a). The petition also alleged J.R. inflicted great bodily injury

. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)
T he juvenile court sustained the petition

. I t found true the attempted mu rder count and found true the allegation that J.R. inflicted great bodily injury. But regarding the premeditation allegation, the court pronounced that it “cannot find that proof
has been shown . . . beyond a reasonable doubt that there was . . . deliberation and premeditation as required. But the Court does
find that [the attempted murder] would be and I think it would fall within the second degree and not first degree. ” Despite the court’s oral pronouncement, t he March 30 , 2022

, minute order
reflects : “Cou r t find s the allegations contained in count(s) 1 are3

true and orders the petition sustained as to said counts after contested hearing. ”
At the disposition hearing , the juvenile court declared J.R.
a ward of the court and committed him to a secure youth

treatment facility with a baseline term of four years and a n aggregate maximum t erm of confinement of 11 years six months

. The aggregate maximum term of confinement was imposed as
follows: seven year s for the attempted murder count plus three

year s for the great bo dily injury allegation in th e instant case, plus an additional 1 6

- month term for five counts from a prior
sustained juvenile petition.
DISCUSSION
J.R. contends

, and the Attorney General concedes

, the
March 30 minute order must be corrected to reflect the oral
pronouncement of the judgment

. We agree.
Where there is a discrepancy between the oral
pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral
pronouncement prevails. ( People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 181, 185 ( Mitchell ) ; People v. Hartley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4 th 620, 637.) We have the authority to correct such discrepancies

. ( Mitchell , at p. 185.) Here, the court orally pronounced that it did

not find the premeditation allegation true. T he minute order
must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment

, clarifying that the premeditation allegation was found not true. The Attorney General also notes a mathematical error in the juvenile court’s oral dispositional pronouncement of judgment
and minute order regarding the aggregate maximum period of
confinement. We have the authority to correct such clerical errors. ( Mitchell

, supra , 26 Cal.4th at p. 185.) Here, t he
aggregate term is the sum o f the 10

- year term imposed for this4

case and the 16

- month term imposed for the prior sustained petition

. The sum of these terms is 11 years four months, not 11 years six months. The May 4, 2022

, minute order shou ld be
corrected

. DISPOSITION
The clerk of the superior court is directed to amend the
minute order on the sustained petition dated March 30

, 20 2 2

, to reflect that the cour t did not find true the premeditation allegation , and amend the disposition minute order dated May 4,

2022

, to reflect that the aggregate maximum time of confinement is 11 years four months.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.Manuel J. Covarrubias, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Esther R. Sorkin , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy Attorneys
Gene ral, for Plaintiff and Respondent.