Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Charles Macon, a state prison inmate serving a life term, was convicted after a jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon with force likely to produce great bodily injury on another inmate. The trial court sentenced him to the third strike term of 27 years to life, to be served consecutively to the sentences he was already serving. On appeal, his appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, summarizing the facts with citations to the record, raising no issues, and asking the court to independently review the record. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief despite being invited to do so by the court.
The underlying offense occurred on April 7, 2024, at Kern Valley State Prison, where correctional officers observed Macon and codefendant Michael Gaddy rushing toward inmate Jamal Hanson and making stabbing motions. Hanson sustained multiple puncture wounds and was transported to an outside hospital for treatment. Officers found a sharpened metal weapon near the scene. The jury found both defendants guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, and in a bifurcated trial, found Macon had three prior strike convictions. The trial court denied Macon's motion to dismiss the prior strikes and sentenced him to 27 years to life under the third strike law, calculated as three times the upper term of nine years for the current offense.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues. However, the court identified a clerical error in the abstract of judgment that required correction. The abstract was prepared on form CR-290.1, which is used for determinate sentences, but Macon had actually received an indeterminate third-strike sentence. The abstract incorrectly showed a determinate term of 27 years rather than the indeterminate term of 27 years to life that was orally pronounced by the trial court and reflected in the reporter's transcript and minute order.
The court directed the Kern County Superior Court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment on form CR-292, the proper form for indeterminate sentences, showing that Macon was sentenced to the third strike indeterminate term of 27 years to life for count 1, consecutive to the sentences he was already serving. The court cited People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, for the proposition that courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts. As corrected, the judgment was affirmed in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts have authority to correct clerical errors in abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of sentence, even when no other issues are raised on appeal.
- When a defendant receives an indeterminate third-strike sentence, the abstract of judgment must be prepared on form CR-292 (Prison Commitment—Indeterminate), not form CR-290.1 (Felony Abstract of Judgment—Determinate).
- Under People v. Wende, when appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the record to determine whether any reasonably arguable issues exist.
- A third-strike sentence of 27 years to life is calculated by multiplying the upper term for the current offense (nine years) by three, pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(A)(i).
- The trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a conflicting abstract of judgment, and the abstract must be corrected to conform to the actual sentence imposed.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the appellate court's duty to ensure that abstracts of judgment accurately reflect the sentences actually imposed by trial courts, even in cases where no substantive issues are raised on appeal. The correction of clerical errors in sentencing documents is essential to ensure that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has accurate records for calculating parole eligibility and administering sentences.
The decision also demonstrates the proper application of the Wende procedure, in which appellate courts independently review the record when counsel finds no arguable issues. Here, the court's independent review revealed a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written abstract, leading to a correction that ensures the defendant's sentence is properly documented as an indeterminate life term rather than a determinate term.