People v. Mahan CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD303978
- Trial judge
- Marian F. Gaston
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court orally deleted probation condition 6(n) regarding computer searches but failed to reflect this deletion in the written probation order. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment as modified, directing the trial court to amend the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Modification of written probation order to conform to oral pronouncement“We accept the People’s concession that the written order granting formal probation should be amended to strike probation condition 6(n) to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the well-established principle that the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the written minute order or abstract of judgment when there is a discrepancy. The court relied on binding authority (People v. Scott, People v. Zackery, People v. Mesa) to support the conclusion that the written order contained a clerical error that should be corrected to match the oral ruling. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the discrepancy identified in the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303 — In a criminal case, the oral pronouncement of sentence constitutes the judgment, and discrepancies between the written order and the oral pronouncement are subject to correction at any time.
- relied: People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380 — Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.
- relied: People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466 — The rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement, and the record of the oral pronouncement controls over the clerk’s minute order and abstract of judgment.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound and relies on correct, binding California authority to resolve a clerical discrepancy between the oral and written judgment. It effectively applies the 'oral pronouncement controls' rule to direct the necessary modification of the probation order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court placed Mahan on two years of probation after his guilty plea to felony vandalism and orally struck probation condition 6(n) (search of computers and recordable media) for lack of nexus to the offense, but the written probation order still included that condition. On appeal, the People conceded and the Court of Appeal remanded with directions to modify the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement, affirming in all other respects.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Written order granting formal probation included condition 6(n) (computers and recordable media search) despite the court's oral pronouncement deleting that condition“This change is not reflected in the written probation order in which the court checked the box including computers and recordable media.” | de novo | error (procedure) | agree with court The discrepancy is a clerical error; under Mesa, Zackery, and Scott the oral pronouncement is the judgment and controls over the written order, and such errors may be corrected at any time, including on appeal. The record quoted (the court's express statement deleting 6(n)) plainly supports correction, and the People conceded. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303 — The oral pronouncement of sentence constitutes the judgment; discrepancies between a written order and the orally pronounced judgment are clerical errors correctable at any time and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal.
- relied: People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380 — Where the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or abstract of judgment conflict, the oral pronouncement controls.
- relied: People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466 — Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement, and the record of the oral pronouncement controls over the clerk's minute order and abstract of judgment.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the settled rule that the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over a conflicting written order and directed the straightforward clerical correction, supported by Mesa, Zackery, and Scott. The opinion addresses the only issue raised, which was conceded, and the result follows directly from the quoted record.
Opinion
Filed 2/27/26 P. v. Mahan 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, D086126
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD303978)
v.
NEMUEL MAHAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions. Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Nemuel Mahan pled guilty to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), admitting he damaged personal property worth more than $400. The trial court granted Mahan two years of probation with various terms and conditions. Mahan contends, the People concede, and we agree, the probation order should be modified to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. At sentencing, the court placed Mahan on probation and reviewed the terms and conditions it would impose. Defense counsel objected to probation condition 6(n), requiring Mahan to submit his computers and recordable media to search. Counsel argued that no nexus existed between that condition and Mahon’s crime. The prosecution did not object. The court agreed and stated: “I’ll impose the rest of the conditions as requested with the following modifications: . . . I’ll delete the computers and recordable media at 6(n).” This change is not reflected in the written probation order in which the court checked the box including computers and recordable media. We accept the People’s concession that the written order granting formal probation should be amended to strike probation condition 6(n) to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. “In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment.” (People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324.) “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; People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement; the record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order and abstract of judgment].) “As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between a [written order] and the 2 actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time, and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal.” (Scott, supra, at p. 1324.) DISPOSITION The matter is remanded and the superior court is directed to modify the order granting formal probation to reflect the deletion of “computers and recordable media” on line 6(n). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
DO, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Scott No. H034764 · 2012-02-28
- People v. Zackery C051431 · 2007-02-01
- People v. Mesa Crim. 17748 · 1975-05-29