Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daronta Tyrone Lewis pleaded guilty under People v. West to gassing an officer after an incident at Mule Creek State Prison in July 2021. According to the opinion, a correctional officer saw Lewis covering his cell window with paper, Lewis ignored a request to stop, and Lewis spat in the officer's face when the officer entered to remove the paper. The plea agreement called for three years in prison with execution suspended and three years of formal probation, including a waiver of the two-year probation limit associated with Assembly Bill No. 1950. In October 2023, the trial court sentenced Lewis under that agreement and imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $40 court operations fee, a $30 criminal conviction fee, and a $300 probation revocation fine stayed pending successful completion of probation.
A probation officer petitioned to revoke probation on January 5, 2024, alleging that Lewis had failed to obey all laws and had committed offenses in Solano County. The opinion states that Lewis was later convicted of robbery and evading a peace officer and received an aggregate sentence of seven years four months. At the probation violation hearing, Lewis waived his right to a hearing and admitted violating probation. The trial court revoked probation, imposed one-third the middle term of the three-year suspended sentence, and ordered that term to run consecutively to the robbery and evading sentence, producing a total sentence of eight years four months. Lewis timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Lewis's appointed counsel requested independent review under People v. Wende and advised Lewis of his right to file a supplemental brief. Lewis did not file one. The Court of Appeal reviewed the entire record and found no arguable error on appeal. The court nevertheless identified two discrepancies between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the clerk's minutes and abstract of judgment. Both documents stated that the trial court imposed and suspended a $300 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 and lifted the stay on the $300 probation revocation fine under section 1202.44, but the trial court had not orally imposed either fine.
The court applied the rule that the oral pronouncement controls when it conflicts with the abstract of judgment or clerk's minutes, citing People v. Mitchell and People v. Zackery. It therefore ordered the trial court to correct the minutes and abstract to conform to the oral pronouncement. A footnote explains that, to the extent the section 1202.45 fine is mandatory, the People had not asked the court in this Wende appeal to correct the failure to impose it as an unauthorized sentence. The disposition affirmed the judgment and directed the trial court to correct the clerk's minutes, prepare a corrected abstract of judgment, and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Key Takeaways
- An independent review of the entire record under People v. Wende resulted in a finding of no arguable error on appeal.
- The judgment was affirmed even though the appellate court identified errors in the written sentencing records.
- The clerk's minutes and abstract listed a parole revocation fine and lifting of a probation revocation fine stay that the trial court had not orally imposed.
- The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over conflicting clerk's minutes or an abstract of judgment under the authorities cited by the court.
- The trial court must correct the minutes and abstract and send a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the absence of arguable appellate error from the need to ensure that written judgment records accurately reflect the sentence actually pronounced in court. Its corrective order concerns the clerk's minutes and abstract, not a reversal of the conviction or the consecutive sentence imposed after Lewis admitted violating probation.
The opinion also leaves a limited issue unresolved: it notes the possible mandatory character of the section 1202.45 fine but states that the People did not request correction of the trial court's failure to impose that fine in this Wende appeal. The court's ruling therefore should not be read as deciding that unrequested sentencing question.