People v. Greenwood CA2/4

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment do not accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence. As explained below, we agree. “In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment. [Citation.] To the extent a minute order diverges from the sentencing proceedings it purports to memorialize, it is presumed to be the product of clerical error. [Citation.] Likewise, the abstract of judgment ‘“cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize.”’ [Citations.] As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between an abstract and the actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time, and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal. [Citation.]” (People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324.) At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally imposed a cumulative sentence of 53 years to life plus 30 years, comprising a sentence of 39 years to life plus 5 years on count 1, and a consecutive sentence of 14 years to life plus 20 years on count 2. Regarding count 1, the court imposed a term of seven years to…