People v. Anderson CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the minute order and abstract of judgment do not reflect the actual sentence imposed. He argues the minute order and abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, and the People agree.

2 Pursuant to Proposition 47, the trial court also reduced the Health and Safety Code section 11350 conviction for which defendant was serving time when he committed this offense to a misdemeanor and resentenced him to one year in the county jail to run concurrent to the new county prison sentence in this case.

2 “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385; accord, People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) Here, the oral pronouncement of a middle-term sentence of three years controls over the inconsistent and incorrect sentence set forth in the minute order and abstract of judgment.3 Accordingly, we order correction of the abstract of judgment so that it is consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.…