People v. Johnson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD216913
- Trial judge
- Jeffrey F. Fraser
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to 25 years in prison following a negotiated guilty plea but failed to reflect joint and several liability for the restitution fine on the abstract of judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but directed the trial court to correct the abstract to reflect the joint and several liability as conceded by the People.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Correction of abstract of judgment to reflect joint and several liability for the $9,208.90 restitution fine“The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect joint and several liability for the $9,208.90 restitution fine and to forward the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.” | unclear | correct | agree with court agree with court |
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound because it relies on the People's concession and the record (transcript and minutes) to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. It correctly identifies that the abstract must conform to the actual sentencing terms agreed upon and documented.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Martrell Johnson's negotiated guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and carjacking with firearm and gang enhancements, sentenced him to 25 years, and imposed a $9,208.90 restitution fine that the reporter's transcript and minutes reflect was joint and several with codefendants, but the abstract of judgment omitted the joint and several designation. On appeal Johnson sought only correction of the abstract, the Attorney General conceded, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment while directing the trial court to correct the abstract and forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Preparation of an abstract of judgment that failed to reflect that the $9,208.90 restitution fine was imposed jointly and severally with codefendants, contrary to the oral pronouncement and minutes“Respondent properly concedes the point.” | unclear | error (other) | agree with court The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the abstract, and a discrepancy in the abstract is a clerical error the appellate court may order corrected at any time; the opinion identifies a discrepancy between the reporter's transcript/minutes and the abstract, the People concede it, and correction with directions is the standard remedy. The opinion cites no authority, but the result is plainly correct. |
Authorities
- missed: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the abstract of judgment, and appellate courts may order correction of clerical errors in the abstract so that it accurately reflects the judgment actually imposed.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached the correct result: a conceded discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the abstract is a clerical error properly remedied by directing correction of the abstract. The opinion is sound in outcome but cites no authority for the correction, such as People v. Mitchell, and provides no analysis beyond noting the concession.
Opinion
Filed 10/29/13 P. v. Johnson 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, D062887
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD216913)
MARTRELL JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F.
Fraser, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Daniel G. Koryn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Martrell Johnson entered a negotiated guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter (Pen.
Code, § 192, subd. (a))1 and carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)) with personal firearm use (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
The court sentenced him to 25 years in prison: the five-year middle term for carjacking, 10 years for each enhancement and a concurrent term for voluntary manslaughter.
Johnson appeals, contending the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect that the $9,208.90 restitution fine was imposed joint and severally with the codefendants, as reflected in the reporter's transcript and the minutes. Respondent properly concedes the point.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect joint and several liability for the $9,208.90 restitution fine and to forward the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2