Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Darrion Jamerson-Keosodsay visited his ex-girlfriend's family reunion on October 21, 2023, wearing a ski mask. After being confronted and ejected by her uncle and the uncle's brother, he pulled a Glock 27 semiautomatic firearm, pointed it at the uncle, and fired one round that missed. Sacramento sheriff's deputies found him hiding in a field within a mile of the home; he resisted the K-9 and arresting officers, and the firearm was recovered nearby. In case No. 23FE017065 (065), he was charged with assault with a semiautomatic firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm within 10 years of a misdemeanor conviction, felon in possession of ammunition, and resisting arrest, with a personal-firearm-use allegation on count one and on-bail enhancements tied to case No. 23FE000894 (894).
After multiple Marsden motions and competency suspensions under section 1368, Jamerson-Keosodsay pled no contest to count one, admitted the on-bail enhancement, and pled no contest to count three. Under the plea agreement he received the six-year middle term on count one, two years for the on-bail enhancement, and eight months on count three, totaling eight years eight months in case No. 065. The court also resentenced him in case No. 894 from three years to eight months in exchange for dismissal of his pending appeal there, and applied 964 days of presentence custody credit as time served on three prior one-year misdemeanor brandishing sentences, producing an aggregate sentence of nine years four months; remaining counts were dismissed. In case No. 065 the court imposed the minimum $300 restitution fine, imposed and suspended a $300 parole revocation fine, and struck the court operations and court facility fees after an indigency argument. He appealed in February 2025 without a certificate of probable cause; his opening brief was filed in May 2026 and briefing completed June 23, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Appointed counsel requested an independent record review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to identify any arguable issues, advised Jamerson-Keosodsay of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days, and no communication from him was received. The court examined the record and identified one error: although the trial court did not orally reimpose any fines or fees when resentencing Jamerson-Keosodsay in case No. 894, the clerk's abstract of judgment included a $4,800 restitution fine and a $4,800 parole revocation fine in that case.
Relying on People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388-389, the court held those items must be stricken because they did not comport with the oral pronouncement of judgment. The disposition directs the trial court clerk to delete the $4,800 restitution fine under section 1202.4 and the $4,800 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 in case No. 23FE000894 from the abstract of judgment and to forward a corrected and certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed, and the opinion identifies no other arguable issue warranting relief.
Key Takeaways
- A Wende review can yield relief even when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues, because the appellate court independently examines the record.
- An abstract of judgment must match the trial court's oral pronouncement; fines never orally imposed at resentencing cannot be added by the clerk.
- The correction concerned case No. 23FE000894, the companion case in which Jamerson-Keosodsay was resentenced under the plea agreement, not the fines imposed in case No. 065.
- The $300 restitution fine and suspended $300 parole revocation fine imposed in case No. 065 were not disturbed, and the judgment was otherwise affirmed.
- The opinion is not certified for publication under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical function of Wende review in catching clerical sentencing errors that directly affect a defendant's financial obligations, here removing $9,600 in fines that appeared only in the abstract of judgment. It applies the settled rule that the oral pronouncement controls over conflicting clerk entries, citing Zackery, without announcing a new legal standard.
The opinion also reflects how a negotiated disposition spanning two cases can generate abstract-of-judgment mistakes: the plea agreement produced a new sentence and custody-credit application in case No. 894, but no oral reimposition of fines or fees there. The remedy was limited to correcting and certifying the abstract for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, leaving the convictions and agreed prison terms intact.