Opinion ID: 844200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Correcting the Abstract of Judgment

Text: Defendant claims, and the People agree, that the abstract of judgment must be corrected, because it does not accurately reflect the actual sentence of 25 years to life, plus an additional five years, imposed by the trial court for the arson count. A review of the record confirms that defendant‘s claim has merit. As noted, the jury found defendant guilty of count II, the arson of Eddings‘s home, and also found true various sentencing enhancement allegations — that defendant had two prior ―strikes‖ within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e), and 1170.12, subdivision (c), had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a), and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 677.5, subdivision (b). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the sentence on count II as follows: ―In this matter, certain prior offenses were alleged and proven. In particular, a first and second special prior offense was alleged pursuant to Penal Code Section 667(c) and (e) and 1170.12(c). Both of these convictions related to the assault with intent to commit rape and the forcible oral copulation on Toni [P.], a conviction which you suffered back in 1990. [¶] Because those prior offenses have [been] found to be true, the Court imposes under Count II the sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment. [¶] For the first, second, and third prior convictions which were alleged in this case, the Court would note that they are convictions for the same offense as under the first and second special prior, and under the provisions of Penal Code Section 667.5(b), the Court imposes a sentence of one year, and I order that stayed pending the completion of the term. [¶] With regard to the first and second prior offenses which are alleged pursuant to 667(a), insofar as they involve the same offense, the Court imposes the mandatory term of five years on each of those, but I order the second five-year term stayed insofar as it arises out of the same facts and circumstances. [¶] The indeterminate term, 112 therefore, under Count II is 25 years to life with an additional determinate term of five years pursuant to 667(a).‖ The various abstracts of judgment, however, including the amended abstract of judgment, incorrectly reflect a sentence of an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, plus an eight-year determinate term, for count II. It is well settled that ―[a]n abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court‘s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize. [Citation.]‖ (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge‘s verbal pronouncement, this court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties. (See ibid.) We therefore order that the abstract of judgment be corrected to conform to the actual sentence imposed by the trial court on count II, namely, an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, with an additional determinate term of five years. (See, e.g., People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 256.) 113