Opinion ID: 1179151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: striking of finding of use of firearm

Text: (5a) Defendant's reliance on Candelario for the further proposition the court intended to strike the use finding (see § 12022.5) by omitting reference to it when pronouncing sentence is likewise misplaced. [8] The power of the court to strike the use finding, if in fact it intended to do so, is claimed to have been authorized by section 1385. [9] If the court was so authorized it cannot be deemed to have exercised that power, however, because it failed to comply with provisions in section 1385 requiring the reasons for a dismissal be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes. (6) Requirement of a statement of reasons for dismissal pursuant to section 1385 is mandatory, not directory ( People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal.3d 937, 944 [120 Cal. Rptr. 65, 533 P.2d 193]), and in the absence of such statement the order may not be considered a dismissal under section 1385. ( People v. Superior Court (Howard) supra, 69 Cal.2d 491, 503, fn. 7.) [10] (5b) It is manifest that because even an express order of dismissal pursuant to section 1385 is ineffective in the absence of a statement of reasons, a use finding cannot be dismissed or struck sub silentio, as defendant claims in this case. There was not, of course, a statement of reasons in support of defendant's claimed striking. We conclude no permissible inference of leniency may be drawn from the trial court's failure to orally recite the degree of the robbery or the use of a firearm in its commission. The judgment is affirmed.