People v. Williams CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE393667, SCE409086
- Trial judge
- Kathleen M. Lewis
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court accepted Williams's guilty pleas and sentenced him to 24 years in prison, but the abstract of judgment incorrectly listed the breakdown of court operations and conviction assessments. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment but ordered the trial court to correct the clerical error in the abstract of judgment to reflect the statutory amounts.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Correction of clerical error in abstract of judgment regarding fines and fees“A reviewing court may correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment at any time “on its own motion or upon the application of the parties.”” | de novo | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues for the court's independent review.
- relied: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — A reviewing court may correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment at any time on its own motion or upon application.
- relied: People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237 — A court may correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment following a Wende review without further briefing.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies a clerical error in the breakdown of statutory assessments and applies the correct standard for correction under People v. Mitchell. It relies on the specific statutory rates to demonstrate the error and orders the necessary correction.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionWilliams pleaded guilty in two cases to attempted murder, two robberies, and aggravated assault with great bodily injury enhancements and a strike prior, and the trial court sentenced him to the bargained 24-year term, but the abstract of judgment misallocated the court operations and conviction assessments ($130/$150 instead of $160/$120). On a Wende appeal with no supplemental brief from Williams, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue for reversal, affirmed the judgment, and ordered the abstract corrected to $160 and $120.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty pleas after advisement and waiver of constitutional rights and consequences of the plea“Williams waived his right to a jury trial, his right to confront and cross- examine witnesses, his right to remain silent, and his right to present evidence.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that Williams waived jury trial, confrontation, silence and presentation of evidence, and admitted a factual basis for each count; under Wende independent review the court found no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests a defect in the advisements, so the conclusion is supported by the record described. |
Imposition of court operations and conviction assessments as recorded in the abstract of judgment“However, the abstract of judgment lists the court operations assessment as $130 and the conviction assessment as $150. The two assessments total to the same amount ($280) either way.” | de novo | error (procedure) | agree with court Section 1465.8(a)(1) mandates $40 per conviction and Government Code section 70373(a)(1) mandates $30 per felony conviction; with four felony convictions the correct figures are $160 and $120, matching the sentencing minutes. The abstract's $130/$150 breakdown is a clerical error the appellate court may correct at any time under People v. Mitchell, and the court properly did so without further briefing. |
Judgment and 24-year sentence imposed pursuant to plea bargain (Wende review for any other arguable issue)“We have not otherwise discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on this appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence was the bargained-for term and the court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders, identifying the possible issues counsel raised. The opinion gives no indication of any sentencing or procedural defect beyond the abstract error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — Appellate courts may order correction of clerical errors in the abstract of judgment at any time, on their own motion or on application of the parties, so the abstract conforms to the judgment actually pronounced.
- relied: People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237 — A reviewing court may correct clerical errors discovered during Wende review without requesting further briefing.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the per-conviction assessment statutes, matched the result to the sentencing minutes, and used Mitchell to order a clerical correction while affirming, which is the standard and proper disposition. The opinion does not mention whether Williams obtained a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, which bears on the scope of review of a guilty-plea appeal, though the omission does not affect the result because no plea-validity issue was found.
Opinion
Filed 12/28/23 P. v. Williams 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, D081848
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCE393667, SCE409086) TYLER RYAN WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2023, Tyler Ryan Williams entered into plea agreements in two separate cases. Under the terms of those agreements, Williams pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), two counts of robbery (§ 211), and one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Williams admitted an infliction of great bodily injury enhancement for both the attempted murder and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury counts. (See § 12022.7, subd. (a).) He also admitted a strike prior from a 2017 conviction for robbery. Williams waived his right to a jury trial, his right to confront and cross- examine witnesses, his right to remain silent, and his right to present evidence. As the factual basis for his guilty plea for attempted murder, Williams admitted he “attempted to kill a person with intent to kill and . . . personally inflicted great bodily injury.” For the two robberies, Williams admitted he “took personal property from another by force or fear from two separate victims.” For assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, Williams admitted he “unlawfully assaulted another person by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and . . . personally inflicted great bodily injury.” Pursuant to Williams’s plea bargain, the trial court sentenced him to a cumulative prison term of 24 years. The sentencing minutes for the two cases included cumulative court operations assessments of $160 (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and cumulative conviction assessments of $120 (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)). However, the abstract of judgment listed the total court operations assessment as $130 and the total conviction assessment as $150. Williams appealed. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been 1 All undesignated statutory references herein are to the Penal Code. 2 able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Williams the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the record indicates that Williams was advised of the consequences of pleading guilty and his constitutional rights, and waived those rights, before pleading guilty; and 2. Whether the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect proper fines and fees. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. Our review discloses error in the listing of the total court operations assessment and total conviction assessment on the abstract of judgment. Specifically, the court operations assessment is $40 “on every conviction for a criminal offense.” (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).) The conviction assessment is $30 for each felony conviction. (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1).) Here, Williams pleaded guilty to and was convicted of four felony offenses. This required imposition of a total court operations assessment of $160 (4 x $40) and a total conviction assessment of $120 (4 x $30). However, the abstract of judgment lists the court operations assessment as $130 and the conviction assessment as $150. The two assessments total to the same amount ($280) either way. The only difference is in the breakdown of the amount between the two.
3 A reviewing court may correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment at any time “on its own motion or upon the application of the parties.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–187.) It may do so following a review of the record required by Wende and without further briefing. (See People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244.) Accordingly, we will order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the appropriate court operations assessment and conviction assessment. We have not otherwise discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare a corrected abstract of judgment that sets the court operations assessment to $160 and the conviction assessment to $120. The trial court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
IRION, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Mitchell S090791 · 2001-07-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12