People v. Sims CA4/3

DISCUSSION

I.

ENTITLEMENT TO RESENTENCING HEARING

Defendant, citing the minute order and abstract of judgment, which provide that the two section 667.5 enhancements were stayed, argues she is entitled to a resentencing hearing based upon People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 305, review granted February 21, 2024, S283189, which interpreted section 1172.75 to apply to stayed enhancements. We agree defendant is entitled to a resentencing hearing but not because the enhancements were stayed. Rather, defendant is entitled to a resentencing hearing because, as discussed below, the trial court imposed the enhancements to run concurrently.

3 A. There Is a Discrepancy Between the Trial Court’s Oral Pronouncement of Sentence and the Minute Order and Abstract of Judgment “When there is a discrepancy between the record of the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the clerk’s minute order, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Hartley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 620, 637.) Similarly, an abstract of judgment “cannot prevail over the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment to the extent the two conflict.” (People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070.) Although the…