Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 California opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Buycksgreen2 sentences2023(See People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [“[W]hen part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.’ [Citations.]”].) DISPOSITION We do not foreclose the possibility that the absence of strike findings on the minute order and abstract of judgment is the result of a clerical error, and, if it can be clearly shown that the omission of those findings is result of a clerical error, the trial court may correct its judgment n 2023(See People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [“[W]hen part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.’ [Citations.]”].) DISPOSITION We do not foreclose the possibility that the absence of strike findings on the minute order and abstract of judgment is the result of a clerical error, and, if it can be clearly shown that the omission of those findings is result of a clerical error, the trial court may correct its judgment n | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mesagreen2 sentences2023“Any discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as recorded in the clerk’s minutes or abstract of judgment is presumed to be the result of clerical error” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 855, citing People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 ), and we may order correction on review (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 , quoting In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 ). 2015Code, § 1213.5)[ ] it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 (Mesa).) On the record before us, we must presume that the discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement on July 17, 2014, and the July 18, 2014 corrected minute order and the abstract of judgment is the result of a clerical error. | 1 | 2 |
Bowden v. Greengreen1 sentence2020(See Bowden v. Green (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 65, 71 [“A clerical error in a judgment is an inadvertent one made by the court which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.”].) Without opposition from Mrs. Turner, Mr. Turner requests that we vacate the judgment and remand for the trial court to correct the clerical error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rowlandgreen1 sentence2015(See Mesa, supra, 14 Cal.3d at pp. 471-472.) “[I]f the minutes or abstract of judgment fails to reflect the judgment pronounced by the court, the error is clerical and the record can be corrected at any time to make it reflect the true facts. [Citation.]” (People v. Little (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 449, 452 ; see also People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123 [same].) Further, California Rules of Court, rule 8.155(c)(1) provides in part that “on its own motion, the reviewing court may order the correction . . . of any part of the record.” We will therefore order the clerk of the superior co | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1952If a clerical error, the court had power to supply the omission; otherwise, not. “ The test for determining whether a judicial error is a clerical one laid down by the Supreme Court in Estate of Goldberg, supra, 10 Cal.2d 709, 715 [ 76 P.2d 508 ], is whether the error is one ‘which cannot reasonably be attributed to exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.’ ” (Wilson v. Wilson, 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) *675 Our examination of the record convinces us that the asserted omission was not the result of a clerical error. 1952If a clerical error, the court had power to supply the omission; otherwise, not. “ The test for determining whether a judicial error is a clerical one laid down by the Supreme Court in Estate of Goldberg, supra, 10 Cal.2d 709, 715 [ 76 P.2d 508 ], is whether the error is one ‘which cannot reasonably be attributed to exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.’ ” (Wilson v. Wilson, 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) *675 Our examination of the record convinces us that the asserted omission was not the result of a clerical error. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Goldberggreen2 sentences1952If a clerical error, the court had power to supply the omission; otherwise, not. “ The test for determining whether a judicial error is a clerical one laid down by the Supreme Court in Estate of Goldberg, supra, 10 Cal.2d 709, 715 [ 76 P.2d 508 ], is whether the error is one ‘which cannot reasonably be attributed to exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.’ ” (Wilson v. Wilson, 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) *675 Our examination of the record convinces us that the asserted omission was not the result of a clerical error. 1952If a clerical error, the court had power to supply the omission; otherwise, not. “ The test for determining whether a judicial error is a clerical one laid down by the Supreme Court in Estate of Goldberg, supra, 10 Cal.2d 709, 715 [ 76 P.2d 508 ], is whether the error is one ‘which cannot reasonably be attributed to exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.’ ” (Wilson v. Wilson, 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) *675 Our examination of the record convinces us that the asserted omission was not the result of a clerical error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quinn v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2023(Quinn, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 475 .) When his hearing impairment was discovered, his employment was terminated. 2013(Quinn, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 475 .) Quinn had failed the medical exam because of a significant hearing impairment, but as a result of a clerical error, he was notified to report for further tests. | 2 | 2013–2023 |
In Re Candelario
green
2 sentences2023“Any discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as recorded in the clerk’s minutes or abstract of judgment is presumed to be the result of clerical error” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 855, citing People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 ), and we may order correction on review (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 , quoting In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 ). 2021“It is not open to question that 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 .) Here, the true facts evidenced by the reporter’s transcript and agreed upon by the parties are that appellant declined to admit he violated probation, and the court found he did only after considering evidence and hearing argument from the parties. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Cameron
green
2 sentences2008(See Hansen , at p. 312 [discussing felony-murder cases involving assault with a deadly weapon as predicate, inherently dangerous felony]; People v. Rhodes (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , 476 fn. 2 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 603 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Barton, supra , 12 Cal.4th at p. 198 , fn. 7.) Garcia does not challenge this conclusion. 5 A Reporter's Note in People v. Cameron, supra , 30 Cal.App.4th at page 602 , footnote *, explains the decision in People v. Rhodes, supra , 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , remained published as the result of a clerical error. 2008A Reporter’s Note in People v. Cameron, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at page 602 , footnote *, explains that the decision in People v. Rhodes, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , remained published as the result of a clerical error. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Rhodes
green
2 sentences2008(See Hansen , at p. 312 [discussing felony-murder cases involving assault with a deadly weapon as predicate, inherently dangerous felony]; People v. Rhodes (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , 476 fn. 2 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 603 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Barton, supra , 12 Cal.4th at p. 198 , fn. 7.) Garcia does not challenge this conclusion. 5 A Reporter's Note in People v. Cameron, supra , 30 Cal.App.4th at page 602 , footnote *, explains the decision in People v. Rhodes, supra , 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , remained published as the result of a clerical error. 2008(See Hansen , at p. 312 [discussing felony-murder cases involving assault with a deadly weapon as predicate, inherently dangerous felony]; People v. Rhodes (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , 476 fn. 2 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 603 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Barton, supra , 12 Cal.4th at p. 198 , fn. 7.) Garcia does not challenge this conclusion. 5 A Reporter's Note in People v. Cameron, supra , 30 Cal.App.4th at page 602 , footnote *, explains the decision in People v. Rhodes, supra , 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , remained published as the result of a clerical error. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Ernst
green
1 sentence2024Accordingly, defendant was deprived of his right to a jury trial.3 (See Ernst, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 448–449.) DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for defendant to exercise his right to a jury trial. 3 As the judgment is reversed and remanded, we need not reach the second issue raised by defendant as to whether the court properly imposed and stayed a $300 probation revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.44. 5. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2023“Any discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as recorded in the clerk’s minutes or abstract of judgment is presumed to be the result of clerical error” (People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831 , 855, citing People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 ), and we may order correction on review (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 , quoting In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Conservatorship of Tobias
green
1 sentence2022(Hennefer v. Butcher (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 492, 506 ; Conservatorship of Tobias (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1035 .) Because we conclude the claim for account stated is sufficient to sustain the judgment, it is unnecessary for us to discuss whether the judgment also could be sustained based on the other theories alleged in the complaint (open book account and quantum meruit). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hennefer v. Butcher
green
1 sentence2022(Hennefer v. Butcher (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 492, 506 ; Conservatorship of Tobias (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1035 .) Because we conclude the claim for account stated is sufficient to sustain the judgment, it is unnecessary for us to discuss whether the judgment also could be sustained based on the other theories alleged in the complaint (open book account and quantum meruit). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Serrano v. Unruh
green
1 sentence2016(See Christian Research Institute, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1321-1322, quoting Serrano v. Unruh, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 635 .) Because the court’s finding that the duplicative billing was the result of a clerical error was not “clearly wrong,” we find no abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor
green
1 sentence2016(See Christian Research Institute, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1321-1322, quoting Serrano v. Unruh, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 635 .) Because the court’s finding that the duplicative billing was the result of a clerical error was not “clearly wrong,” we find no abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan
green
1 sentence2016(See Calvo Fisher & Jacob, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 620 .)8 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Little
green
1 sentence2015(See Mesa, supra, 14 Cal.3d at pp. 471-472.) “[I]f the minutes or abstract of judgment fails to reflect the judgment pronounced by the court, the error is clerical and the record can be corrected at any time to make it reflect the true facts. [Citation.]” (People v. Little (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 449, 452 ; see also People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123 [same].) Further, California Rules of Court, rule 8.155(c)(1) provides in part that “on its own motion, the reviewing court may order the correction . . . of any part of the record.” We will therefore order the clerk of the superior co | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Hong
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1075 .) Here, the trial court orally pronounced a no visitation order under section 1202.05, which requires the sentencing court to prohibit visitation between a defendant convicted of certain sex offenses and his "child victim." Section 646.9, subdivision (k), on the other hand, provides that the sentencing court should consider issuing a restraining order against a defendant convicted of stalking. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Delgado
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070 .) A discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced by the court and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of a clerical error. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Barton
green
1 sentence2008(See Hansen , at p. 312 [discussing felony-murder cases involving assault with a deadly weapon as predicate, inherently dangerous felony]; People v. Rhodes (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , 476 fn. 2 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 603 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Barton, supra , 12 Cal.4th at p. 198 , fn. 7.) Garcia does not challenge this conclusion. 5 A Reporter's Note in People v. Cameron, supra , 30 Cal.App.4th at page 602 , footnote *, explains the decision in People v. Rhodes, supra , 215 Cal.App.3d 470 , remained published as the result of a clerical error. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Burnett v. Burnett
green
2 sentences1941The recitals in an order of a trial judge that a judgment was signed by him as a result of a clerical error are not conclusive upon an appellate court (Estate of Burnett, 11 Cal. (2d) 259 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 89 ]; Stevens v. Superior Court, supra), and in the present case, the record is absolutely devoid of any evidence to support the statement that a clerical error was made. 1941The recitals in an order of a trial judge that a judgment was signed by him as a result of a clerical error are not conclusive upon an appellate court (Estate of Burnett, 11 Cal.2d 259 [79 PaCal.2d 89]; Stevens v. Superior Court, supra), and in the present case, the record is absolutely devoid of any evidence to support the statement that a clerical error was made. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.