minutes of the sentencing hearing in California

2025However, as a practical matter, the word “impose” is often employed as shorthand to refer to the first situation, while the word “stay” often refers to the latter.’” (People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1125 .) The context in which the terms are used must be examined.

2021Plus P/A $930 per PC 290.3.”3 Case law holds “that penalty assessments must be (1) specified in the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, and (2) specifically listed in the abstract of judgment.” (People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937 , citing People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 , 1200–1201.) “If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency. [Citation.] At a minimum, the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may a

2021Plus P/A $930 per PC 290.3.”3 Case law holds “that penalty assessments must be (1) specified in the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, and (2) specifically listed in the abstract of judgment.” (People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937 , citing People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 , 1200–1201.) “If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency. [Citation.] At a minimum, the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may a

2014For the same reason, the People’s reliance on People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181 , holding that gratuitous violence against a helpless and unresisting victim has been viewed as not incidental to a robbery for purposes of section 654, is misplaced. 15 arson prior, bringing the total term to 25 years, and to reflect these changes in the minutes of the sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment.

2014(People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 .) “The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment. [Citation.] . . . [T]he clerk’s minutes must accurately reflect what occurred at the hearing.” (Id. at pp. 387-388.) There being no oral pronouncement of dismissal on 16 the record, we decline to find a dismissal based on the minutes.

2014The minutes of the plea hearing state, “Dismissal of remaining counts-Harvey Waiver continued to time of sentence.” The minutes of the sentencing hearing, signed by the court, state, “All remaining charges, enhancements and/or special allegations are hereby ordered dismissed/stricken pursuant to PC 1385.” The abstract of judgment shows only the conviction as to Count Three, to which defendant pleaded no contest. “ ‘Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement.’ ” (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 .) When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute

2014(See Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 142, 176, 177.) DISPOSITION 16 The convictions for counts 8 and 9 are reversed, as are their concurrent six month sentences, and the trial court is directed to omit reference to them in the minutes of the sentencing hearing, if the prosecutor elects not to retry defendant for them.

2013(See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 .) We direct that the minutes of the sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment be corrected to reflect that the trial court stayed the sentence imposed as to count 2, pursuant to Penal Code section 654.