correction of a clerical error in California

2024(People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 , 186–187 [appellate court may order the correction of a clerical error in abstract of judgment without a request from either party].) The December 4, 2023, 6 We observe that Lomack voluntarily participated in alcohol abuse treatment.

2023(People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 , 186–187 [appellate court may order the correction of a clerical error in abstract of judgment without a request from either party].) The trial court is directed to send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

2021As we will explain, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record and determined that there is no arguable issue on appeal other than the correction of a clerical error in the clerk’s sentencing minutes.

2021As we will explain, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record and determined that there is no arguable issue on appeal other than the correction of a clerical error in the clerk’s sentencing minutes.

2021As we will explain, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record and determined that there is no arguable issue on appeal other than the correction of a clerical error in the clerk’s sentencing minutes.

2020Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we have reviewed the whole record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal other than the correction of a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

2018This court ordered the correction of a clerical error but otherwise affirmed the judgment on October 25, 2017. ( People v. Mathews (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 601 , 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 .) In December 2017, Mathews filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, contending that the matter should be remanded to the trial court in light of S.B. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682).

2018This court ordered the correction of a clerical error but otherwise affirmed the judgment on October 25, 2017. ( People v. Mathews (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 601 , 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 .) In December 2017, Mathews filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, contending that the matter should be remanded to the trial court in light of S.B. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682).

1963Having once made its decision after regular submission, the court had no power to amend for judicial error (Drinkhouse v. Van Ness, 202 Cal. 359 [ 260 P. 869 ]).

1963Having once made its decision after regular submission, the court had no power to amend for judicial error (Drinkhouse v. Van Ness, 202 Cal. 359 [ 260 P. 869 ]).

2021(See Epley v. Califro (1958) 49 Cal.2d 849 , 854 7 [order setting aside a dismissal was not a correction for inadvertence or clerical error, but rather “a new decision after reconsideration of the facts and the applicable legal principles”]; Danko v. O’Reilly (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 732, 736 [“‘“The decision to grant an amendment”’” to add a judgment debtor under an alter ego theory “‘“lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.”’”]; Greenspan v. LADT LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508 [same]; see also Favila v. Pasquarella, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 947 [stating the requirements for ad

2018"The court: It will be taken out of the equalization payment." Moreover, the trial court's granting of the request to correct the original judgment and its statement, "I know what I was indicating," supports our conclusion that the trial court's amended judgment constituted the correction of a clerical error. ( Bowden, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at pp. 71–72 [in determining whether error is clerical, "the best evidence is the judge's own statement, either express or implied from the order of correction"].) 45 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction in entering

2006Citing Hess v. Gross (1943) 56 Cal.App.2d 529, 532 [ 133 P.2d 1 ] and Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 285 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 387 ], Nickolas argues that the juvenile court did not have authority to modify the disposition order because the modification did not constitute the correction of a clerical error, and seriously prejudiced his constitutional interests in family reunification.

2006Citing Hess v. Gross (1943) 56 Cal.App.2d 529, 532 [ 133 P.2d 1 ] and Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 285 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 387 ], Nickolas argues that the juvenile court did not have authority to modify the disposition order because the modification did not constitute the correction of a clerical error, and seriously prejudiced his constitutional interests in family reunification.

1961(Cf. Estate of Lilley, 169 Cal.App.2d 540, 542 [ 337 P.2d 585 ]; Mills Sales Co. v. Gonzales, 146 Cal.App.2d Supp. 899 [ 304 P.2d 274 ].) But even if it be assumed that the order presently before this court for review has the effect of eliminating the language originally incorporated by reference in the order of January 15, 1959, on the ground that such incorporation was due to clerical error, there is then presented the question of the propriety of making such correction.

1961(Cf. Estate of Lilley, 169 Cal.App.2d 540, 542 [ 337 P.2d 585 ]; Mills Sales Co. v. Gonzales, 146 Cal.App.2d Supp. 899 [ 304 P.2d 274 ].) But even if it be assumed that the order presently before this court for review has the effect of eliminating the language originally incorporated by reference in the order of January 15, 1959, on the ground that such incorporation was due to clerical error, there is then presented the question of the propriety of making such correction.

1961(Leviston v. Swan, supra, 33 Cal. 480, 484 ; Citizens Nat.

1961(Leviston v. Swan, supra, 33 Cal. 480, 484 ; Citizens Nat.

1959(Egan v. Egan, 90 Cal. 15 [ 27 P. 22 ]; Stevens v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.2d 110 [ 59 P.2d 988 ]; Maxwell v. Perkins, 116 Cal.App.2d 752 [ 255 P.2d 10 ].) On the other hand, if prior to December 17, 1956, the trial judge had reevaluated the evidence and had come to the conclusion that no reconciliation had occurred, as he had the legal right to do, then the December 17, 1956, order was entered “inadvertently” and the correction of December 18, 1956, was the correction of a clerical error.

1959(Egan v. Egan, 90 Cal. 15 [ 27 P. 22 ]; Stevens v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.2d 110 [ 59 P.2d 988 ]; Maxwell v. Perkins, 116 Cal.App.2d 752 [ 255 P.2d 10 ].) On the other hand, if prior to December 17, 1956, the trial judge had reevaluated the evidence and had come to the conclusion that no reconciliation had occurred, as he had the legal right to do, then the December 17, 1956, order was entered “inadvertently” and the correction of December 18, 1956, was the correction of a clerical error.

1959(Egan v. Egan, 90 Cal. 15 [ 27 P. 22 ]; Stevens v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.2d 110 [ 59 P.2d 988 ]; Maxwell v. Perkins, 116 Cal.App.2d 752 [ 255 P.2d 10 ].) On the other hand, if prior to December 17, 1956, the trial judge had reevaluated the evidence and had come to the conclusion that no reconciliation had occurred, as he had the legal right to do, then the December 17, 1956, order was entered “inadvertently” and the correction of December 18, 1956, was the correction of a clerical error.

1959(Carter v. Shinsako, 42 Cal.App.2d 9 [ 108 P.2d 27 ].) Thus the question narrows down to this.

1959(Carter v. Shinsako, 42 Cal.App.2d 9 [ 108 P.2d 27 ].) Thus the question narrows down to this.

1959(Egan v. Egan, 90 Cal. 15 [ 27 P. 22 ]; Stevens v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.2d 110 [ 59 P.2d 988 ]; Maxwell v. Perkins, 116 Cal.App.2d 752 [ 255 P.2d 10 ].) On the other hand, if prior to December 17, 1956, the trial judge had reevaluated the evidence and had come to the conclusion that no reconciliation had occurred, as he had the legal right to do, then the December 17, 1956, order was entered “inadvertently” and the correction of December 18, 1956, was the correction of a clerical error.

1959(Egan v. Egan, 90 Cal. 15 [ 27 P. 22 ]; Stevens v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.2d 110 [ 59 P.2d 988 ]; Maxwell v. Perkins, 116 Cal.App.2d 752 [ 255 P.2d 10 ].) On the other hand, if prior to December 17, 1956, the trial judge had reevaluated the evidence and had come to the conclusion that no reconciliation had occurred, as he had the legal right to do, then the December 17, 1956, order was entered “inadvertently” and the correction of December 18, 1956, was the correction of a clerical error.

1959(Egan v. Egan, 90 Cal. 15 [ 27 P. 22 ]; Stevens v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.2d 110 [ 59 P.2d 988 ]; Maxwell v. Perkins, 116 Cal.App.2d 752 [ 255 P.2d 10 ].) On the other hand, if prior to December 17, 1956, the trial judge had reevaluated the evidence and had come to the conclusion that no reconciliation had occurred, as he had the legal right to do, then the December 17, 1956, order was entered “inadvertently” and the correction of December 18, 1956, was the correction of a clerical error.