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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.) The 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 within the meaning of 

section 664, subdivision (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 orders to correct these 

errors, but otherwise affirm the judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

E.C. was walking down the street with his girlfriend 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 count 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).) 

The juvenile court sustained the petition. It found true the

attempted murder 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, the March 30, 2022, minute order 

reflects: “Court finds the allegations contained in count(s) 1 are 
3

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 an 

aggregate maximum term of confinement of 11 years six months.

The aggregate maximum term of confinement was imposed as 

follows: seven years for the attempted murder count plus three

years for the great bodily injury allegation in the instant case, 

plus an additional 16-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.4th 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. The 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, the 

aggregate term is the sum of the 10-year term imposed for this 
4

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 should be 

corrected. 

DISPOSITION

The clerk of the superior court is directed to amend the 

minute order on the sustained petition dated March 30, 2022, to

reflect that the court 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 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.