Filed 8/12/26 P. v. Williams CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B344558
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA041538
v.
JOSEPH LASHAWN
WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Reversed and
remanded with directions.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Nikhil Cooper, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The abstract of judgment against appellant Joseph
Lashawn Williams contains a clerical error that must be
corrected. It states the trial court imposed a restitution fine of
$2,800 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).1 The
reporter’s transcript of the sentencing court’s oral
pronouncement, however, states the fine was $280. The People
have not rebutted the presumption that the reporter’s transcript
takes precedence. We thus direct the trial court to amend the
abstract of judgment to reflect the correct amount. We also direct
the court to send the amended abstract of judgment to the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Lastly, we direct the court to inform the CDCR that it must
reimburse Williams for any amount above $280 he has overpaid.
BACKGROUND
In 2013, a jury convicted Williams of several offenses and
found gang and great bodily injury allegations true. After
Williams admitted various prior conviction allegations were true,
the trial court imposed a lengthy prison sentence under the Three
Strikes law. The only aspect of sentencing that is relevant to this
appeal is a victim restitution fine the court imposed under section
1202.4, subdivision (b).
In 2025, Williams wrote the trial court two letters asking it
to correct the $2,800 victim restitution fine listed in his abstract
of judgment. In one of those letters, Williams included a copy of
the reporter’s transcript of his sentencing hearing held on March
4, 2013. That transcript indicates the trial court orally
pronounced a judgment that imposed a restitution fine of $280.
1 Unspecified statutory references to statutes are to the
Penal Code.
2
Pointing to the disparity between the orally pronounced fine
amount ($280) and the amount listed on his abstract of judgment
($2,800), Williams asserted that the amount listed on the
abstract of judgment was a clerical error that the court should
correct. Williams also included documentation showing that he
had already overpaid the CDCR an amount exceeding $280.2 He
asked the court to notify the CDCR of the error, forward an
amended abstract of judgment to the CDCR reflecting the correct
$280 fine amount, and direct the CDCR to reimburse him for his
overpayment.
In a minute order dated February 6, 2025, the trial court
denied Williams’s requests. In doing so, the court referred to
Williams’s copy of the reporter’s transcript of his 2013 sentencing
hearing as “uncertified,” suggesting the court was skeptical of its
authenticity. The court also noted that it had reviewed other
aspects of the case file in deeming Williams ineligible for relief.
The court stated that in 2021, Williams had filed a different
motion challenging his restitution fine on different basis (namely
his inability to pay), and in that motion, Williams had
acknowledged that the fine amount imposed was $2,800. The
court further stated that the trial judge who denied Williams’s
2021 motion had also indicated that the restitution fine imposed
2 One document Williams submitted to the trial court was a
CDCR restitution history form. That form indicated that
Williams owed $2,800 in restitution, and as of January 1, 2025,
he had paid $1,434.11. The document further stated that
Williams still owed a balance of $1,365.89.
3
was $2,800.3 Lastly, the court noted that it had reviewed
Williams’s abstract of judgment, which listed the restitution
amount as $2,800. For these reasons, the court concluded that
the restitution fine the trial court imposed was actually $2,800,
not $280.
Williams timely appealed the order denying his request to
modify the abstract of judgment. His appointed counsel,
however, filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216 raising no issues. Williams then filed a brief reiterating the
arguments he had made in the trial court. Along with his brief,
he included his copy of his resentencing hearing transcript, which
reflects an oral pronouncement of a $280 restitution fine.
We ordered the record in Williams’s direct appeal (Case No.
B247704). The certified reporter’s transcript in that record
confirms Williams’s claim. Indeed, the relevant page of the
reporter’s transcript listing the restitution fine as $280 is
identical to Williams’s copy of that page he submitted to the trial
court and this court.
After observing that our copy of the reporter’s transcript
reflected the same oral pronouncement of restitution as
Williams’s copy, we asked the parties to file supplemental briefs
addressing the proper resolution of this appeal. We have now
received and considered the parties’ supplemental briefs.
DISCUSSION
Conflicts between the oral pronouncement of judgment
found in the reporter’s transcript and the abstract of judgment
found in the clerk’s transcript “are generally presumed to be
3 Williams’s 2021 motion and the trial court’s minute order
denying him relief are attached to the People’s motion for judicial
notice. We grant the People’s motion.
4
clerical in nature and are resolved in favor of the reporter’s
transcript unless the particular circumstances dictate otherwise.”
(See In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 30, fn. 4; see also
People v. Gonzalez (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 724, 744; People v.
Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Michell).) We see no reason
the presumption should not apply here. When Williams was
sentenced in 2013, the minimum restitution fine courts could
impose under section 1202.4, subdivision (b) was $280. (Former
§ 1202.4, as amended by Stats. 2015 ch. 569, § 15, eff. Jan. 1,
2013.) There is no reason to believe the trial court made a
mistake at the time it orally pronounced a $280 restitution fine.
We agree with Williams that the trial court should correct the
abstract of judgment to reflect the $280 restitution fine orally
pronounced at sentencing, and that Williams should be
reimbursed by the CDCR for any amount above $280 he overpaid.
(See Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185 [courts may correct
clerical errors at any time]; People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th
1071, 1080.) “[A]n abstract of judgment must reflect a restitution
fine a sentencing court has orally imposed under section 1202.4,
subdivision (b).” (Mitchell, at p. 186.)
The Attorney General contends that the documents
relating to William’s 2021 motion to correct the abstract of
judgment demonstrate that the trial court imposed a $2,800
restitution fine in 2013. It is true Williams stated in his 2021
motion that the restitution fine was $2,800. But those documents
are not dispositive.
As defense counsel explains in her supplemental brief,
what governs is the restitution amount the trial court orally
imposed at Williams’s sentencing hearing in 2013. That Williams
had apparently not discovered the clerical error in the abstract of
5
judgment in 2021 does not undermine his current position. The
same is true of the trial court’s belief in 2021. Nothing in the
record indicates that when the trial court rejected Williams’s
2021 motion, it reviewed the reporter’s transcript of the 2013
sentencing hearing.
DISPOSITION
The February 6, 2025, order denying Williams’s motion to
correct the abstract of judgment is reversed. The trial court is
directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that
Williams’s section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine amount
is $280. The court is further directed to send the amended
abstract of judgment to the CDCR, and to issue an order directing
the CDCR to reimburse Williams any amount exceeding $280
that he has overpaid due to the clerical error in his abstract of
judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TAMZARIAN, J.
We concur:
ZUKIN, P. J.
DAUM, J.
6
