People v. Garcia CA6

Opinion

Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Garcia CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H054020 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 172599)

v.

GILBERT FRANCISCO GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Convicted of multiple counts of murder, robbery, and drug trafficking offenses, Gilbert Francisco Garcia was originally sentenced in 1998. The trial court resentenced Garcia in 2025 by stipulation of the parties after the Legislature authorized recall and resentencing by enacting Penal Code section 1172.752 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3). The court imposed two concurrent sentences of 25 years to life in prison (striking multiple sentencing enhancements that had presumably increased the original sentence), recalculated Garcia’s actual days of custody credit, and “imposed, but suspended” a restitution fund fine and “waive[d] the balance of the fees.” On appeal, the parties agree that the amended abstracts of judgment fail to correctly capture the court’s calculation of 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. custody credits and disposition of fines and fees. The Attorney General adds that the clerk’s minutes reflect the same errors. We will order the abstracts of judgment and minute order corrected to reflect Garcia’s 10,161 additional days of actual credit and the trial court’s waiver of the restitution and parole revocation fees. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell).) At the original sentencing hearing, the trial court calculated that Garcia had accrued 1,260 days of custody credit—840 actual days plus 420 additional days of conduct credit under section 4019. At the November 18, 2025 resentencing hearing, the trial court calculated that Garcia had since accrued another 10,161 actual days and ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to calculate conduct credit accordingly. The trial court also “imposed, but suspended” a restitution fund fine and “waive[d] the balance of the fees,” based on the parties’ stipulation that Garcia lacked the ability to pay. The clerk’s minutes of the resentencing hearing and the amended abstracts of judgment3 nevertheless reflected at item 9 a $1,000 restitution fine and a $1,000 parole revocation restitution fine, with only the latter suspended under section 1202.45. The form abstracts of judgment also omitted any credit calculations from the section designated “CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED” (item 15 of the abstract for the indeterminate term and item 16 of the abstract for the stayed determinate term) but included a correct credit calculation on a separate page of “Other Orders” corresponding to item 13. The minute order from the date of the resentencing reflected the imposition of a $1,000 restitution fund fine and an additional $1,000 parole revocation restitution fine that was imposed but suspended under section 1202.45, subdivision (a).

3 In addition to the abstract of judgment for the indeterminate term, an abstract was issued to document the determinate terms stayed by operation of section 654 for the nonmurder charges.

2 Garcia’s counsel wrote to the trial court, seeking corrections to the amended abstracts of judgment under section 1237.2. Counsel requested the court “prepare and file further amended abstracts of judgment deleting [the $1,000 restitution and parole revocation] fines,” and “include the [court’s award of] 11,001 actual days and 420 days local conduct credit on the above requested amended abstracts of judgment.”4 The trial court issued further amended abstracts of judgment on March 3, 2026. But these continued to list the $1,000 restitution fund fines and parole revocation restitution fines at item 9, albeit with a one-page attachment of “[o]ther [o]rders,” which provided (1) unspecified “Fines/Fees are stricken based on an inability to pay,” and (2) “All credits are listed on the AOJ.” But the amended indeterminate abstract of judgment identified no custody credits, instead cross-referencing the determinate abstract of judgment. The determinate abstract—prepared here solely for terms stayed by operation of section 654—reflected as credits in item 16 only the 840 days of actual credit and 420 days of section 4019 credit Garcia had accrued as of the date of the original sentencing. Although the amended determinate abstract now mentioned “10,161 ACT days CTS,” this abbreviated reference was made under item 13’s “[o]ther orders.” “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts … that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185.) We will accordingly order issuance of new amended abstracts of judgment and a corrected minute order for the November 18, 2025 resentencing hearing. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

4 Counsel’s total of 11,001 actual days adds the 840 actual days Garcia was credited at the time of the original sentencing to the additional 10,161 days he had accrued by the resentencing hearing.

3 The clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare and transmit to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation amended abstracts of judgment reflecting (1) at item 15 of the abstract of judgment for the indeterminate term and at item 16 of the abstract of judgment for the determinate term, Garcia’s 10,161 additional days of actual custody credit from the original date of sentencing to November 18, 2025, and (2) at item 9 of both abstracts, the trial court’s suspension of the $1,000 restitution fine—not just the $1,000 parole revocation restitution fine. The clerk of the superior court is further directed to correct the November 18, 2025 minute order consistent with these corrections to the amended abstracts of judgment.

4 LIE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BROMBERG, J.

CHUNG, J. People v. Garcia H054020  Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.