Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Luque 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E087340
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2403764)
ROBERTO GONZALEZ LUQUE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Juan Carlos Dominguez,
Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Roberto Gonzalez Luque, in pro. per.; and Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for the Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Roberto Gonzalez Luque appeals from an order of the
Riverside County Superior Court correcting the abstract of his judgment. We will
dismiss the appeal because it is taken from an order that is not appealable.
1
BACKGROUND
In December 2024, defendant pled guilty to the following violations of the Penal
Code:1 fraudulently obtaining money (§ 532, subd. (a), count 1); two counts of grand
theft (§ 487, subd. (a), counts 7 & 8); forgery of a check and using it with intent to
defraud (§ 470, subd. (d), count 9); forgery of bill, note, or check (§ 476a, count 14); and
willfully obtaining another person’s identification and using it for an unlawful purpose
(§ 530.5, subd. (a), count 15). He also admitted a pattern of felony conduct involving
more than $500,000 in violation of section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2) (the aggravated
white collar crime enhancement) and agreed to pay $1,093,900 in victim restitution. In
keeping with his plea agreement, he was sentenced to a total prison term of eight years
and four months and ordered to pay the victim restitution.
In September 2025, in response to a letter from the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, the trial court ordered amendment of the abstract of
judgment and the minutes of the sentencing hearing to reflect that the white collar crime
enhancement is attached to count 1 (as set forth in defendant’s plea form and in the oral
pronouncement at the sentencing hearing), not count 15. Defendant appealed and we
appointed counsel to represent him.
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief in keeping with
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 that sets forth statements of the case and facts
but does not present any issues for adjudication.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we notified defendant that his counsel had filed
a brief stating counsel had not found an arguable issue. We advised defendant that this
court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record but it may exercise
its discretion to do so, and we invited him to file any arguments he deemed necessary.
In response, defendant filed a 28-page document that does not raise any issue
concerning the order correcting his abstract of judgment. Instead he complains he felt
pressured to accept the plea deal offered to him by the district attorney and public
defender, and he was discriminated against because he is Mexican which is why his
sentence was “high” even though he had no prior arrests or previous offenses in the
United States. He also claims the trial court did not take into account during sentencing
that his victims had “sent other[s]” to find him and he was the victim of attempted
murder, robbery, and assault. Defendant submitted an assortment of documents with his
supplemental brief as evidence of his claims.
Defendant requests this court’s assistance with respect to getting into a witness
protection program, obtaining restraining orders against his aggressors, investigating his
case as a crime victim, and putting his restitution requirements on hold until his case is
investigated.
DISCUSSION
In a case like the present one in which a clerical error was made in recording the
judgment of the trial court, that court has the authority to correct that error at any time.
(In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705; People v. Sanchez (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th
3
1060, 1064.) The correction of a clerical error has no impact on a defendant’s judgment.
(Sanchez, supra, at p. 1064.)
The right to appeal is determined by statute, and a party may not appeal a trial
court’s judgment, order, or ruling that is not expressly made appealable by statute.
(People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159.) Section 1237 limits a defendant’s right
to appeal postjudgment orders to those orders affecting the substantial rights of the party.
(§ 1237, subd. (b).) Because the trial court’s order amending the abstract of judgment
and the minute order of the sentencing hearing to correctly reflect its oral pronouncement
of defendant’s sentence did not affect defendant’s substantial rights, the order is not
appealable. Accordingly, we will dismiss defendant’s appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4