People v. Lopez CA2/8

DISCUSSION

“An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Purely clerical errors such as misstatements in an abstract of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral sentencing may be corrected at any time. (Ibid.) “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1, 15.) Here the trial court did not impose an additional sentence of 25-years-to-life pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d) on count 1 when it resentenced Lopez. The court’s oral

2 pronouncement controls so the abstract of judgment must be corrected to delete that additional sentence as to count 1.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is remanded to the trial court with instructions to prepare, file, and forward a corrected abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE…