People v. Hobson CA2/4

BACKGROUND

In 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 [counts 1, 5, 12])1 and one count of assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) [count 8]). He also admitted one personal weapon use allegation and three principal armed allegations. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022, subd. (a)(1).) Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received a 19-year sentence.2 According to both the reporter’s transcript and the abstract of judgment, the terms were to run consecutively, but according to the minute order, the terms were to run concurrently. In 2013, defendant moved to amend the abstract of judgment to conform to the minute order, which stated that the terms were to run concurrently. After reviewing the oral and written transcripts for the 2003 sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the motion, stating in its November 2013 order: “Pursuant to the plea and sentencing transcript, the terms were to run consecutively. . . . [¶] The clerk’s minutes were subsequently corrected nunc pro tunc to correct the ‘concurrent’ entry.”

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

On count 12 (robbery), defendant received a five-year base term for the robbery…