P. v. Huyck
Filed 2/15/13 P. v. Huyck CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
NATHAN ALLEN HUYCK,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E056492
(Super.Ct.No.
BAF1100367)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of
County. Gary B.
Tranbarger, Judge. Affirmed with
directions.
Jesse
W.J. Male, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Holly D. Wilkens,
Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following a jury trial, defendant
and appellant Nathan Allen Huyck was found guilty of one count of
violation of Penal Code
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] section 451, subdivision (b), and one count of
arson of property in violation of section 451, subdivision (d). He was sentenced to
years. The court further ordered him to
pay a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a parole revocation
restitution fine (§ 1202.45) stating:
“Restitution fine of $200 is set.
Parole revocation restitution fine is set.â€
Defendant
contends in this appeal that the sentencing
judgment are inaccurate, showing that the court imposed both a $1,000
restitution fine and a $1,000 parole revocation fine. The People concede that the transcript of the
oral proceedings indicates that the restitution fine ordered is $200 and that
both documents should be corrected to reflect that amount. As both parties point out, the oral pronouncement
controls where there is a discrepancy between it and the minute order and/or
the abstract of judgment. (
380, 385.)
The
People contend, however, that the matter is not so clear with respect to the
parole revocation restitution fine because the court did not indicate the exact
amount of the fine. Not only do the
minute order and abstract of judgment state that the fine is $1,000, but the
People also point out that the probation report recommended a $1,000 parole
revocation restitution fine, as well as a restitution fine. Accordingly, the People suggest that the case
be remanded back to the superior court for clarification of this issue only.
A
remand is not necessary. Section 1202.45
requires that the parole revocation restitution fine be set in the same amount
as the restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). The court stated that the amount of the
latter fine was $200 and said the parole revocation restitution fine “is set.†In this content, it must be concluded that
the sentencing court set both fines at $200.
DISPOSITION
The
superior court clerk is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and
sentencing minute order to indicate that the court imposed a restitution fine
in the amount of $200 and a parole revocation restitution fine in the amount of
$200. It must then forward corrected
copies of the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order to the
affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING
J.
We concur:
RICHLI
Acting
P. J.
MILLER
J.
Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
of the facts of this case in light of the single issue defendant raises.
