In re J.R. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

J.R. contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the March 30 minute order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of the judgment. We agree. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement prevails. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell); People v. Hartley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 620, 637.) We have the authority to correct such discrepancies. (Mitchell, at p. 185.) Here, the court orally pronounced that it did not find the premeditation allegation true. The minute order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment, clarifying that the premeditation allegation was found not true. The Attorney General also notes a mathematical error in the juvenile court’s oral dispositional pronouncement of judgment and minute order regarding the aggregate maximum period of confinement. We have the authority to correct such clerical errors. (Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185.) Here, the aggregate term is the sum of the 10-year term imposed for this

3 case and the 16-month term imposed for the prior sustained petition. The sum of these terms is 11 years four…