People v. Neilson CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

the case and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to

undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done. conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. However, we

note that the abstract of judgment reflects the date of conviction as November 17, 2014.

This date appears to be a clerical error, since the trial court expressly ordered the

conviction date to be backdated to December 10, 2013. Generally, a clerical error is one

inadvertently made. (People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808.) A court “has

the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records

reflect the true facts.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) It is evident that the

superior court clerk’s error in indicating in the abstract of judgment that the…