Court Opinion

ID: 9943547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 19:03:41.125949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:14.726875
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/23/24 P. v. Adkins CA4/1

                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081781

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD152255)

ALDO RAE ADKINS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

         Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General,
Collette C. Cavalier and Ksenia Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION1
      In October 2000, a jury convicted Aldo Rae Adkins of first degree

murder (Pen. Code,2 § 187, subd. (a)), with one enhancement for personal use
of a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the murder (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1), and two prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b); § 668). In
February 2021, the trial court sentenced Adkins to a determinate term of
three years (one year for each of the prior prison term and deadly weapon
enhancements), plus an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for first degree
murder. The court also imposed a $1,000 restitution fine, which Adkins paid.
      In January 2023, the trial court resentenced Adkins. The court struck
his two prison prior enhancements and sentenced him to 25 years to life for
first degree murder, plus a one-year consecutive term for the deadly or
dangerous weapon enhancement. Additionally, the court declared that it
“will reimpose the original fine of $1,200, pursuant to . . . section 1202.4(b).”
      On appeal, Adkins’s only claim is that the trial court incorrectly
ordered him to pay a higher fine amount than it originally imposed. The
People do not dispute that the trial court erred, and neither do we.

1    We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

2     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                                        2
      “[T]o ‘reimpose’ a restitution fine is not to impose a new . . . fine.
Rather, to ‘reimpose’ the fine is to confirm or acknowledge the same fine that
previously had been imposed upon conviction.’ ” (People v. Cropsey (2010) 184
Cal.App.4th 961, 965, italics in original [in the context of probation
revocation]; see also People v. Arata (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 195, 202–203;
People v. Holman (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1456.) “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, citing People v. Mitchell (2001) 26
Cal.4th 181, 185–186 (Mitchell).)
      Because the trial court intended to reimpose the original fine but
mistakenly stated the wrong fine amount, we will amend the January 2023
abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the trial court’s reimposition of
Adkins’s original $1,000 restitution fine. (See Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at
pp. 187–188 [court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records
at any time to reflect true facts]; People v. Culpepper (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th
1134, 1138–1139 [ordering trial court to correct abstract of judgment to
reflect additional days of custody credit]; People v. Donan (2004) 117
Cal.App.4th 784, 786 [ordering trial court to amend abstract of judgment in
accordance with the court’s opinion].)

                                         3
                               DISPOSITION
      The judgment is modified by striking the fine amount of $1,200 and
reimposing the original restitution fine of $1,000. As modified, the judgment
is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment
accordingly and to send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                                                          IRION, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

                 KELETY, J.

                   RUBIN, J.

                                      4