1

Filed 8/18/14 P. v Carmona CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. LISA MARIE CARMONA,

Defendant and Appellant. C074698 (Super. Ct. Nos. 09F03733, 13F01300)

Defendant Lisa Marie Carmona pleaded no contest to assault likely to produce great bodily injury , which resulted in a probation violation

. On appeal , she contends the

court erroneously i ncreased restitution fines previously imposed

. She also asks this court
to correct various cl erical errors in the original probation order and various internal court records ( minute orders )

. The People agree with defendant as to all her clai ms

. O ur inspection of the record reveals n o inappropriate increase in restitution f ines by the trial court , only error s in various written orders , including the probation order and abstract of judgment . We note the disputed fines were not orally ordered imposed or2

executed, and shall modify the judgment accordingly. For reasons we explain post , we decline to order any corrections to the original probation order and minute orders not resulting from the sentence that is the proper subject of this appeal , b ut will advise the trial court to ensure that its own minutes correctly reflect its orders

. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Case No. 09F03733 (drug case) Defendant was charged in 2009 with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); cou nt one); resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count two) ; 1 and driving a vehicle on a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.5, subd. (a); count three). As to count three, i t was further alleged that defendant
had suffered three prior convictions. Defendant p leaded no contest to all counts in exchange for dismissal of another case and a stipulated sentence

-- five years of formal probation with service of 120 days in county jail as a condition thereof

. The trial court orally orde red defendant to pay a $ 2 00 restitution fine ( § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $ 2 00 probation revocation fine ( § 1202.44) , stayed un less probation was revoked , and waived all discretionary fees

. The $200 amount is incorrectly reflected in the resulting order of probation as $400.
Case No. 13 F01300 (assault case) In 2013, w hile still on probation for the drug case, d efendant was charged with attempted murder (§ § 664/ 187, subd. (a); count one); assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (GBI) ( § 245, subd. (a)(4); count two); and criminal threats ( § 422; count three). As to the first two counts, it was alleged defendant had personally
inflicted GBI on the victim. ( § 12022.7, subd. (a). ) Defendant pleaded no contest to
assault with inte nt to cause GBI and admitted the GBI enhancement in exchange for a

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

stipulated sentence of five years state prison and dismissal of all other charges. The trial
court found defendant violat ed her probation in the drug case based on the commission of
the ne w offense

. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in prison; imposed a restitution fine of $280 and an additional parole revocation fine of $280, suspended; imposed a $30 criminal conviction fee and a $40 court operations fee; and waived the

ma in jail booking and classification fees. As to the probation violation on the drug case , the court sentenced defendant to the stipulated two years concurrent and imposed “no additional fines.” The resulting abstract of judgment reflects two separate $4 00 fines for the drug case

-- one “now due” for defendant’s violation of probation ( § 1202.44) and one suspended unless parole is revoked ( § 1202.45).
Defendant timely appeals

. DISCUSSION
I
Restitution Fine s Defendant first challenges the two separate $400 fines appearing in the abstract of judgment and noted above

-- one “now due” for defendant’s violation of probation ( § 1202.44) and one suspended unless parole is revoked ( § 1202.45). As defendant contends, and the People agree, both fines were origina lly orally imposed (with the section 1202.44 fine stayed) in the amount of $200. As we noted ante , the $200 amount was incorrectly reflected ( in 2009 ) in the resulting order of probation as $400, an error which apparently inf

luenced the 2013 abstract of j udgment , for it contains the same error. These $400 amounts for the fine s now due ( § 1202.44) and stayed ( § 1202.45) in the drug
case and reflected in the abstract of judgment as relating to “Case B” should be reduced to $200. Further, because neither of these fines w as orally pronounced by the trial court at
the 2013 sentencing for the probation revocation, we must modify the judgment to4

include these fines . Because the fines are already reflected in the abstract of judgment,
but are in the wr ong amounts, we direct the abstract be amended to reflect these fines in
the correct amounts. We also direct the trial court to correct the corresponding minute
order (dated August 30, 2013) so as to avoid additional confusion . (See People v. Zackery (20 07) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388 [striking orders not pronounced by court from abstract of judgment and corresponding minute order].)
II Remaining Co ntentions
Defendant next contends that we should order various corrections to the 2009 probation order to accu rately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment at the time defendant was originally granted probation. The People agree. But neither party provides authority for the proposition that we have jurisdiction to order changes to a 2009
order that constituted an appealable order at the time it was made and apparently was never appealed. (See § 1237, subd. (a).) We decline to do so. Similarly, the parties join to request that we order corrections to certain of the trial court’s minute orders

-- its internal records

-- dated from 2009 through 2013 and apparently containing incorrect references to prior conviction allegations. Again, they provide no supporting authority

. Again, w e decline t he request. Instead, we direct the trial court to ensure that its minute orders accurately reflect the orders made by the trial court. ( See In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 [trial court has inherent authority to correct minute orders]; People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 8, 13 [such correcti ons may be made “at any time”]. )
DISPOSITION As modified, the judgment is affirmed

. The trial court is directed to prepare a n amended abstract of judgment in conformity with this opinion, and to forward a certified
copy there of to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

.5 DUARTE , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

ROBIE , J.