Court Opinion

ID: 9395825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 18:03:46.437423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.757882
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/18/23 In re J.R. CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 In re J.R., a Person Coming                                2d Juv. No. B321260
 Under the Juvenile Court                                (Super. Ct. No. 2021032620)
 Law.                                                         (Ventura County)

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 J.R.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      J.R. appeals from an order adjudicating him a ward of the
court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The juvenile court sustained
the allegation that he committed attempted murder (Pen. Code,1
§§ 664/187), but did not find true the allegation that he

         1   Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
committed the crime with premeditation within the meaning of
section 664, subdivision (a). J.R. contends, and the Attorney
General concedes, there is a discrepancy between the minute
order on the sustained petition and the court’s oral
pronouncement of judgment. The Attorney General also notes an
error in the court’s calculation of the aggregate maximum period
of confinement. We modify the minute orders to correct these
errors, but otherwise affirm the judgment.
             FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       E.C. was walking down the street with his girlfriend when
he saw a group of people in front of an apartment building. E.C.
recognized J.R. as one of the people in the group. J.R. kneeled
and began shooting at E.C. E.C. was shot as he was running
away. He survived.
       The juvenile petition alleged one count of attempted
murder (§§ 664/187) and further alleged the crime was committed
willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation within the
meaning of section 664, subdivision (a). The petition also alleged
J.R. inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)
       The juvenile court sustained the petition. It found true the
attempted murder count and found true the allegation that J.R.
inflicted great bodily injury. But regarding the premeditation
allegation, the court pronounced that it “cannot find that proof
has been shown . . . beyond a reasonable doubt that there was . . .
deliberation and premeditation as required. But the Court does
find that [the attempted murder] would be and I think it would
fall within the second degree and not first degree.” Despite the
court’s oral pronouncement, the March 30, 2022, minute order
reflects: “Court finds the allegations contained in count(s) 1 are

                                2
true and orders the petition sustained as to said counts after
contested hearing.”
       At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared J.R.
a ward of the court and committed him to a secure youth
treatment facility with a baseline term of four years and an
aggregate maximum term of confinement of 11 years six months.
The aggregate maximum term of confinement was imposed as
follows: seven years for the attempted murder count plus three
years for the great bodily injury allegation in the instant case,
plus an additional 16-month term for five counts from a prior
sustained juvenile petition.
                            DISCUSSION
       J.R. contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the
March 30 minute order must be corrected to reflect the oral
pronouncement of the judgment. We agree.
       Where there is a discrepancy between the oral
pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral
pronouncement prevails. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th
181, 185 (Mitchell); People v. Hartley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 620,
637.) We have the authority to correct such discrepancies.
(Mitchell, at p. 185.) Here, the court orally pronounced that it did
not find the premeditation allegation true. The minute order
must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment,
clarifying that the premeditation allegation was found not true.
       The Attorney General also notes a mathematical error in
the juvenile court’s oral dispositional pronouncement of judgment
and minute order regarding the aggregate maximum period of
confinement. We have the authority to correct such clerical
errors. (Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185.) Here, the
aggregate term is the sum of the 10-year term imposed for this

                                 3
case and the 16-month term imposed for the prior sustained
petition. The sum of these terms is 11 years four months, not 11
years six months. The May 4, 2022, minute order should be
corrected.
                           DISPOSITION
       The clerk of the superior court is directed to amend the
minute order on the sustained petition dated March 30, 2022, to
reflect that the court did not find true the premeditation
allegation, and amend the disposition minute order dated May 4,
2022, to reflect that the aggregate maximum time of confinement
is 11 years four months.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                   BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             YEGAN, J.

                               4
                 Manuel J. Covarrubias, Judge

               Superior Court County of Ventura

                ______________________________

      Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.