People v. Sprague CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant asks that we strike the section 1202.5 crime prevention fines from the abstract of judgment.2 His argument has merit.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses. 2 The court did not expressly reference any fine recommendations in the probation officer’s report. Defendant, however, says he is not challenging the imposition of the mandatory fines and fees.

2 A court is required to pronounce sentence orally in the defendant’s presence. (§ 1193; People v. Prater (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 695, 702.) Defendant is correct that because the sentencing judge did not orally impose the fines, they should not have been included in the minutes of the sentencing proceeding or the abstract of judgment. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186.) A minute order or abstract of judgment that does not accurately reflect the oral judgment of the trial court may be corrected on appeal (id. at p. 185) and we shall direct the trial court to correct the minute order and…