Court Opinion

ID: 9882333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 20:03:54.797744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:16.221021
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/5/23 P. v. Sanford 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Yolo)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097893

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. Nos. CR2020-0632
                                                                                      & CR2021-2987)
           v.

 MICHAEL CLARE SANFORD,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Clare Sanford filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) After examining the record, we shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract of
judgment and sentencing minute orders to delete certain financial obligations that the trial
court did not orally impose at sentencing. We find no other arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       Defendant was charged in Yolo County Superior Court case No. CR2020-0632
(case No. CR2020-0632) with communicating with a minor with the intent to commit a
sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3, subd. (a); count 1),1 arranging a meeting with a
minor to commit sexual offenses (§ 288.4, subd. (b); count 2), offering to furnish
marijuana to a minor under the age of 14 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (a); count
3), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 4), being a felon
in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a); count 5), possession of body armor
(§ 31360, subd. (a); count 6), and possession of a stun gun (§ 22610, subd. (a); count 7).
For counts 1, 2, and 3, it was alleged that defendant was armed with a firearm during the
offenses. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) It was further alleged that defendant had a prior strike
conviction. (§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1).)
       In July 2021, defendant filed a pre-plea motion to dismiss the strike prior
allegation pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and
section 1385, subdivision (a). The People opposed, and the trial court denied the motion.
       In September 2021, defendant failed to appear in court on case No. CR2020-0632,
and a bench warrant was issued and held for two weeks; when defendant failed to appear
again, the trial court issued the bench warrant and set bail. Defendant was later located in
Georgia and extradited back to California where he was remanded to county jail pending
the outcome of his criminal proceedings.
       In October 2021, defendant was charged in Yolo County Superior Court case
No. CR2021-2987 (case No. CR2021-2987) with failure to appear in case No. CR2020-
0632. (§ 1320.5; count 1.) It was further alleged that defendant was out on bail at the

1      Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
time of the offense (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)), and that defendant had a prior strike
conviction.
       In July 2022, defendant entered into a global plea agreement as to both cases.
Defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 (communicating with a minor with the intent to
commit a sexual offense) and count 5 (felon in possession of ammunition) in case
No. CR2020-0632, and pleaded no contest to the failure to appear offense in case
No. CR2021-2987 in exchange for a stipulated term of four years four months in state
prison and dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations.
       In September 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term. The
court imposed the midterm of three years for the communication with a minor offense
and consecutive terms of eight months each (one-third the midterm) for the possession of
ammunition and failure to appear offenses. The court awarded defendant 832 days of
presentence credit (416 days actual credit plus 416 days conduct credit). The court also
entered a 10-year criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1)
protecting the minor victim and her parents or guardians.
       Although the trial court did not orally impose any restitution fines or other
assessments at the sentencing hearing, the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute
orders show the following financial obligations: a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and an
identical $600 parole revocation restitution fine, suspended unless parole was revoked
(§ 1202.45), in case No. CR2020-0632; a $300 restitution fine and a $300 parole
revocation restitution fine, suspended unless parole was revoked, in case No. CR2021-
2987; and for the three offenses in both cases, a $120 court operations assessment
(§ 1465.8) and a $90 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant
appealed, and we granted his request to construe his notice of appeal as timely.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to

                                              3
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30
days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant.
       Having examined the record, we have discovered an error regarding the financial
obligations reflected on the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute orders. The
rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th
181, 185-186; People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) “Where there is a discrepancy
between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of
judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th
380, 385.) “The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by
adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.” (Id. at pp. 387-
388.) If the clerk includes fines or fees in the minute order or on the abstract of judgment
that were not orally imposed, those fines or fees must be stricken from the minute order
and abstract. (Id. at pp. 387-389; People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 124.)
       Here, the trial court did not orally impose any restitution fines under either section
1202.4 or 1202.45, nor did the court orally impose any court operations or court facilities
assessments under section 1465.8 or Government Code section 70373, respectively. The
abstract of judgment and the minute orders, however, reflect $600 in restitution and
parole revocation restitution fines in case No. CR2020-0632, $300 in restitution and
parole revocation restitution fines in case No. CR2021-2987, a $120 court operations
assessment, and a $90 court facilities assessment. Because the trial court did not orally
impose these financial obligations during sentencing, we shall direct that the abstract of
judgment and minute orders be corrected to reflect the trial court’s actual oral
pronouncement of judgment, which controls.
       We find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant.

                                              4
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the trial court is directed to correct the
abstract of judgment and minute orders by deleting reference to the following financial
obligations: (1) the $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and the identical $600 parole
revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45) in case No. CR2020-0632; (2) the $300 restitution
fine and the corresponding $300 parole revocation restitution fine in case No. CR2021-
2987; (3) the $120 court operations assessment under section 1465.8; and (4) the $90
court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373. The clerk is further
directed to forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                                                     /s/
                                                 KEITHLEY, J.*

We concur:

    /s/
EARL, P. J.

    /s/
MESIWALA, J.

*       Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                             5