P. v. Price
Filed 1/17/08 P. v. Price CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGER PYATT PRICE, Defendant and Appellant. | C055245 (Super. Ct. Nos. 06F7991, 06F7994, 06F8228) |
Defendant Roger Pyatt Price entered no contest pleas to charges he committed residential robbery (case No. 06F8228), illegally possessed a firearm (case No. 06F7991), evaded an officer (case No. 06F7994), and committed a second count of robbery (case No. 06F9746). In exchange, he received a stipulated 16-year sentence.
The sole issue on appeal is created by a curious inconsistency between two versions of what otherwise appear to be identical reporters transcripts of the sentencing proceedings in the amount of the restitution fine imposed. In the reporters transcript detailing the January 30, 2007, sentencing hearing submitted to this court, the trial court imposed restitution and parole revocation fines[1]of $3,200, respectively. In the version of the reporters transcript included as a component of the clerks transcript, the trial court appears to have imposed restitution and parole revocation fines of $200 each. The form felony docket and minutes of the sentencing proceeding, the minutes signed by the judge, and the abstract of judgment all report fines of $3,200.
The $3,000 discrepancy in imposed fines between the two reported versions of the sentencing proceedings is inexplicable: each version bears a certificate by the same certified shorthand reporter that it is a full, true, accurate, and verbatim record of the sentencing proceedings.[2]
Defendant asks that we remand the matter to the trial court for clarification; the People agree remand is required.
When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement rendering judgment -- as reflected in the reporters transcript -- and the minute order or the abstract of judgment contained in the clerks transcript, the oral pronouncement controls; courts presume any inconsistency is the result of clerical error and rely upon the oral pronouncement contained in the reporters transcript. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471; People v. Crenshaw (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1415-1416.) Here, we cannot rely upon the reporters transcript to resolve conflicts in the written record of the sentencing hearing because the record contains two inconsistent versions of that document.
We shall remand the matter for the limited purpose of discerning the true amounts of the intended restitution and parole revocation fines.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded for the superior court to clarify whether it intended to impose fines pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.45 in the amounts of $200 or $3,200. If the abstract of judgment thereafter requires amendment, the superior court shall prepare and transmit an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
DAVIS , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] These fines are imposed pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.45, respectively.
[2] The certificate supporting the transcript showing the imposition of $200 fines, however, is dated February 6, 2007; the other is dated March 26, 2007.
