P. v. Eggman
Filed 12/17/08 P. v. Eggman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Placer)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD LEE EGGMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | C056874 (Super. Ct. No. 62064989) |
The sole issue on appeal is whether the abstract of judgment fails to conform to the judgment as orally pronounced. The People concede, and we agree, that it does not.
Because the issue on appeal is limited, we briefly state the relevant facts.
Initially charged with nine crimes arising from an event in which he allegedly threatened his former girlfriend and drove her around in one or more stolen vehicles, defendant Richard Lee Eggman entered a negotiated guilty plea to three crimes: two counts of unlawfully driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), one felony (count six), and one misdemeanor (count seven), plus one count of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422, count eight). In view of his prior strike conviction, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of eight years and four months.
The abstract of judgment, however, does not accurately reflect the judgment imposed. The abstract incorrectly states that defendants conviction on count seven was a felony when, in fact, it was a misdemeanor.
Defendant properly sought correction of this error in the trial court. The correction was not made.
The abstract must be modified to reflect the judgment orally imposed. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [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].)
The abstract of judgment must be modified to reflect that the unlawful taking of a vehicle of which defendant was convicted in count seven was a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.
DISPOSITION
The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendants conviction on count seven was a misdemeanor, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise
affirmed as modified.
SIMS , Acting P. J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
