Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Court of Appeal:
Judge Must Have Minute Order Corrected Though Abstact of Judgment Is Accurate
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Where a minute order reflects imposition of an impermissible sentence but the abstract of judgment recites a proper sentence, the course for an appellate court to take is to affirm the judgment but to direct the trial court to have the minute order fixed, the Court of Appeal for this district has held.
The opinion for Div. Three by Presiding Justice Lee Edmon was filed Monday and not certified for publication. It affirms, as modified, a judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Fidler.
The minute order recites a restitution fund fine of $10,000 “as to each count” while Penal Code §1202.4(b)(1) sets a per-case maximum in felony cases of $10,000.
“Curiously, although both the court’s oral pronouncement and minute order reflect a restitution fine of $10,000 as to each count, the abstract of judgment indicates imposition of only a single $10,000 restitution fine. The People thus contend that ‘neither remand nor correction of the minute order is necessary because enforcement of the judgment is carried out according to the abstract of judgment, and the abstract already reflects a single $10,000 fine.’ Defendant disagrees, urging that we should order correction of the minute order to avoid possible future adverse consequences resulting from inaccurate court records. We agree with defendant that correction of the minute order is appropriate.”
The case is People v. Sanders, B272034.
Copyright 2017, Metropolitan News Company