Filed 7/15/ 22 P. v. Correa CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GARY GEORGE CORREA,

Defendant and Appellant. H048702 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1920828 , C1914753 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

Appellant Gary George Correa pleaded no contest in two separate cases and was

granted probation pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement

. On appeal, t he parties agree

that the trial court , in pronouncing sentence, failed to order the dismiss al of alleged

sentencing enhancements , although the trial court’s minute orders reflect the dismissal of

these allegations

. On this record, we deem the minute orders t o prevail over the trial

court’s oral pronouncement . We therefore affirm the orders granting probation as

reflected in the minute orders

. On October 7, 2020, Correa entered a negotiated plea agreement in case numbers

C1914753 and C1920828 whereby he agre ed to plead no contest felony vandalism (Pen.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also, People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 8 5 2

- 855.)2

Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)), 2 misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484), brandishing a weapon

(§ 417, subd. (a)(1)), and manufacturing a weapon (§ 4502, subd. (b)) . In exchange, the

People agreed to dismiss all remainin g counts, enhancements, and allegations in both

cases. The parties also agreed that Correa would be on probation for up to five years,

supervised by the mental health treatment court

, and serve one year in jail, modifiable by

the mental health treatment c ourt. At the change of plea hearing, the People indicated

that it would “move to strike both [of Correa’s] strikes” at the sentencing hearing.

At the sentencing hearing on November 12, 2020, the trial court indicated its

tentative decision to follow the parties’ negotiated agreement

. There being no objection

,

the trial court then sentenced Correa in both cases by placing him on three years’

probation and imposing a one

- year jail term modifiable by the mental health treatment

court

. The trial court dismissed the remaining substantive counts in both cases but

neglected to state on the record it s disposition of the alleged enhancements. The trial

court’s minute orders, however, reflect th e dismissal of all remaining enhancements and

a llegations in both cases. 3

Generally, when the oral pronouncement of judgment conflicts with the minute

order, the oral pronouncement controls. ( People v. Farrell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384,

fn. 2.) Under “the modern rule ,” however, even where the minute order and the

transcribed oral pronouncement cannot be reconciled

, “ the part of the record that will

prevail is the one that should be given greater credence in the circumstances of the case.”

( People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346; Pe ople v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d

596, 599.)

2 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 In case number C1 914753, the minute order reflects dismissal of the following allegations: two prior strike convic tion s (§ 1170.12), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In case
number C1920828, the minut e order reflects dismissal of two allegations of prior strike

convic tion s (§ 1170.12).3

Here , the circumstances make clear the trial court ’s intention to dismiss the

remaining allegations , which in turn lends greater credence to the minute orders. The

trial court granted probation as it had indicat ed in its tentative decision, and t he grant of

probation would have been unauthorized absent dismissal of certain allegations

. ( See,

e.g., § 1170.12, subd. (a)(2) [probation cannot be granted when a defendant has a prior

strike conviction]; § 667, subd. (c)(2) [probation cannot be granted if defendant has prior

serious felony conviction] .) Under these circumstances, we deem the minute orders to

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

People v. Thom

pson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 974, 978 .)

Although Correa asks that we “modify the judgment,” the grant of probation

obviated the need for an abstract of judgment, and the operative written order s

memorializing that grant of probation are the minute order s

. Because those minute orders

already conform to the parties’ agreement, there is no need for further modification

.

DISPOSITION

The correct sentence s are reflected in the minute orders dated November 12, 2020,

in case numbers C1914753 and C1920828

, which prevail over the sentence s as stated in

the reporter’s transcript. As such, the orders granting probation are affirmed.____________________________ LIE , J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________ GREENWOOD, P.J.

_____________________________ GROVER, J.

People v. Correa

H048702