P. v. Termargaryan
Filed 9/30/08 P. v. Termargaryan CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YERVAND TERMARGARYAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B205020 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA066372) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Teri Schwartz, Judge. Modified in part; affirmed in part.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and John R. Gorey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Appellant Yervand Termargaryan pled guilty to five of the nine charges against him in return for an agreed-upon sentence of seven years in state prison. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to five years on the carjacking conviction, plus consecutive terms of eight months for the felony vandalism, burglary and identity theft convictions, for a total of seven years in state prison.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to show his sentence of seven years. We agree, and order the correction, as set forth in our disposition. We affirm the judgment of conviction in all other respects.
Facts
A summary of the facts of appellant's offenses is not necessary to the resolution of this appeal and so is omitted.
Discussion
Appellant contends that the total of seven years, two months on the abstract of judgment is a clerical error at odds with the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence and should be corrected by this Court. Respondent agrees. We agree as well.
Appellant's plea agreement was for a total term of seven years in state prison. The trial court orally imposed a sentence which totaled seven years in prison. The abstract correctly shows the term imposed by the court on each of the four counts. Box 8 on the form shows a total of seven years and two months, however. This is unmistakably a clerical error. We are authorized to correct such errors, and do so now. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
Disposition
The abstract of judgment is ordered corrected to show that appellant's total sentence is seven years in state prison. The clerk of the superior court is instructed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this correction and to deliver a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment of conviction is affirmed in all other respects.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
We concur:
MOSK, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
