People v. Hayes CA1/5

DISCUSSION

Hayes claims the court “inadvertently neglected” to “orally dismiss” Counts II through V and the corresponding sentencing enhancement at the March 6, 2014 sentencing hearing. Hayes urges us to dismiss “the remaining counts and allegations” and to direct the court to prepare a new minute order of the sentencing hearing. We decline to do so. As a general rule, a trial court’s oral pronouncements are presumed correct. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) Under certain circumstances, however, a minute order or abstract of judgment will prevail over a reporter’s transcript. (People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 768; People v. Thompson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 974 (Thompson).) “When the record is in conflict and cannot be harmonized, ‘“that part of the record will prevail, which, because of its origin and nature or otherwise, is entitled to greater credence. . . .”’” (Thompson, at p. 978.) Here, the July 3, 2013 minute order and the abstract of judgment prevail. The July 3, 2013 minute order states the court accepted the Hayes’s plea agreement on Counts I and VII and dismissed the remaining charges, Counts II through V and the corresponding sentencing enhancement.…