People v. Majors CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD305430
- Trial judge
- Robert O. Amador
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), William S. Dato, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court orally found the defendant lacked the ability to pay court fees but erroneously imposed them in the written minute order and abstract of judgment. The appellate court modified the judgment to strike the unpronounced assessments, affirming the rest of the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of $40 court operations assessment and $30 criminal conviction assessment“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” | de novo | error | agree with court The trial court failed to orally pronounce the assessments, which is required for them to be validly imposed. The appellate court correctly applied the rule that oral pronouncements control over written documents in cases of discrepancy. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — Oral pronouncement of judgment controls over minute order or abstract of judgment; appellate court has authority to correct clerical errors.
- relied: People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380 — Oral pronouncement controls over written judgment documents when there is a discrepancy.
- relied: People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Contextual reference to the trial court's finding of inability to pay fees.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound and correctly applies the well-established rule that oral pronouncements control over written discrepancies. It relies on appropriate binding authority to support the modification of the judgment.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a jury convicted Majors of possession for sale of a controlled substance, the trial court orally found he lacked the ability to pay the $40 court operations assessment and $30 criminal conviction assessment, yet the minute order and abstract of judgment reflected both assessments as imposed. On appeal, with the People conceding, the Court of Appeal held the oral pronouncement controls, struck both assessments as clerical errors, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Entry in the minute order and abstract of judgment of a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) despite the trial court's oral finding that Majors had no ability to pay them“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” | de novo | error (procedure) | agree with court The opinion correctly applies the settled rule from Mitchell and Zackery that the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over conflicting clerical records, and that appellate courts may correct such clerical errors. The record as quoted shows a plain inconsistency between the oral 'no ability to pay' finding and the written records, and the People conceded, so the correction is well supported. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — The abstract of judgment does not control over the oral pronouncement of judgment, and appellate courts have authority to order correction of clerical errors in the abstract.
- relied: People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380 — Where the clerk's minutes or abstract of judgment conflict with the court's oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls and the records must be corrected.
- relied: People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Due process requires an ability-to-pay determination before imposing court operations and criminal conviction assessments; cited as the basis for the trial court's ability-to-pay finding.
The appellate opinion: sound — The memorandum opinion directly resolves the single conceded issue by applying the well-established rule that the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over inconsistent minute orders and abstracts, citing the controlling Supreme Court authority in Mitchell. The disposition—striking the assessments and directing correction of the records—is the standard and appropriate remedy for this clerical discrepancy.
Opinion
Filed 5/27/26 P. v. Majors 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, D086405
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD305430)
ADOLPHUS MAJORS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Adolphus Majors of one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found Majors did not have the ability to pay the “Court Security Fee” of $40 or the “Criminal Conviction Fee” of $30. (See People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, 1164.) But the court’s June 26, 2025 minute order and abstract of judgment both reflect that the trial court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Majors argues, and the People concede, that the court operations assessment and criminal conviction assessment must be stricken because they were not orally pronounced by the court. We agree with the parties. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. (See, e.g., People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–389; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186 (Mitchell).) We have the authority to correct such clerical errors. (See Mitchell, at p. 185.) The abstract of judgment and minute order are plainly inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement that Majors had “no ability to pay” the court operations and criminal conviction assessments. Because the trial court’s oral pronouncement controls, both assessments shall be stricken from the abstract of judgment, and the minute order shall be corrected. DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to strike the $40 court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8 and the $30 criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the June 26, 2 2025 minute order and abstract of judgment, prepare an amended abstract of judgment, and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
DO, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Zackery C051431 · 2007-02-01
- People v. Mitchell S090791 · 2001-07-19