Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Garcia CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H054020
(Santa Clara County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 172599)
v.
GILBERT FRANCISCO GARCIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Convicted of multiple counts of murder, robbery, and drug trafficking offenses,
Gilbert Francisco Garcia was originally sentenced in 1998. The trial court resentenced
Garcia in 2025 by stipulation of the parties after the Legislature authorized recall and
resentencing by enacting Penal Code section 1172.752 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3). The
court imposed two concurrent sentences of 25 years to life in prison (striking multiple
sentencing enhancements that had presumably increased the original sentence),
recalculated Garcia’s actual days of custody credit, and “imposed, but suspended” a
restitution fund fine and “waive[d] the balance of the fees.” On appeal, the parties agree
that the amended abstracts of judgment fail to correctly capture the court’s calculation of
1
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of
Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th
847, 853–855.)
2
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
custody credits and disposition of fines and fees. The Attorney General adds that the
clerk’s minutes reflect the same errors. We will order the abstracts of judgment and
minute order corrected to reflect Garcia’s 10,161 additional days of actual credit and the
trial court’s waiver of the restitution and parole revocation fees. (People v. Mitchell
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell).)
At the original sentencing hearing, the trial court calculated that Garcia had
accrued 1,260 days of custody credit—840 actual days plus 420 additional days of
conduct credit under section 4019. At the November 18, 2025 resentencing hearing, the
trial court calculated that Garcia had since accrued another 10,161 actual days and
ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to calculate
conduct credit accordingly. The trial court also “imposed, but suspended” a restitution
fund fine and “waive[d] the balance of the fees,” based on the parties’ stipulation that
Garcia lacked the ability to pay.
The clerk’s minutes of the resentencing hearing and the amended abstracts of
judgment3 nevertheless reflected at item 9 a $1,000 restitution fine and a $1,000 parole
revocation restitution fine, with only the latter suspended under section 1202.45. The
form abstracts of judgment also omitted any credit calculations from the section
designated “CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED” (item 15 of the abstract for the
indeterminate term and item 16 of the abstract for the stayed determinate term) but
included a correct credit calculation on a separate page of “Other Orders” corresponding
to item 13. The minute order from the date of the resentencing reflected the imposition
of a $1,000 restitution fund fine and an additional $1,000 parole revocation restitution
fine that was imposed but suspended under section 1202.45, subdivision (a).
3
In addition to the abstract of judgment for the indeterminate term, an abstract
was issued to document the determinate terms stayed by operation of section 654 for the
nonmurder charges.
2
Garcia’s counsel wrote to the trial court, seeking corrections to the amended
abstracts of judgment under section 1237.2. Counsel requested the court “prepare and
file further amended abstracts of judgment deleting [the $1,000 restitution and parole
revocation] fines,” and “include the [court’s award of] 11,001 actual days and 420 days
local conduct credit on the above requested amended abstracts of judgment.”4
The trial court issued further amended abstracts of judgment on March 3, 2026.
But these continued to list the $1,000 restitution fund fines and parole revocation
restitution fines at item 9, albeit with a one-page attachment of “[o]ther [o]rders,” which
provided (1) unspecified “Fines/Fees are stricken based on an inability to pay,” and
(2) “All credits are listed on the AOJ.” But the amended indeterminate abstract of
judgment identified no custody credits, instead cross-referencing the determinate abstract
of judgment. The determinate abstract—prepared here solely for terms stayed by
operation of section 654—reflected as credits in item 16 only the 840 days of actual
credit and 420 days of section 4019 credit Garcia had accrued as of the date of the
original sentencing. Although the amended determinate abstract now mentioned “10,161
ACT days CTS,” this abbreviated reference was made under item 13’s “[o]ther orders.”
“Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts … that have
properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment
that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (Mitchell, supra,
26 Cal.4th at p. 185.) We will accordingly order issuance of new amended abstracts of
judgment and a corrected minute order for the November 18, 2025 resentencing hearing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4
Counsel’s total of 11,001 actual days adds the 840 actual days Garcia was
credited at the time of the original sentencing to the additional 10,161 days he had
accrued by the resentencing hearing.
3
The clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare and transmit to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation amended abstracts of judgment reflecting
(1) at item 15 of the abstract of judgment for the indeterminate term and at item 16 of the
abstract of judgment for the determinate term, Garcia’s 10,161 additional days of actual
custody credit from the original date of sentencing to November 18, 2025, and (2) at
item 9 of both abstracts, the trial court’s suspension of the $1,000 restitution fine—not
just the $1,000 parole revocation restitution fine.
The clerk of the superior court is further directed to correct the November 18,
2025 minute order consistent with these corrections to the amended abstracts of
judgment.
4
LIE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BROMBERG, J.
CHUNG, J.
People v. Garcia
H054020
Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.