People v. Hayward CA1/5 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 5/15/15 P. v. Hayward CA1/5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FIVE
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    A142463
    v.
    MARK A. HAYWARD,                                                     (Sonoma County
    Super. Ct. No. SCR619836)
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Mark A. Hayward appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest
    plea. He seeks a remand for clarification of his sentence. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    In March 2013, appellant pled no contest to grant theft (Pen. Code, § 487,
    subd. (a); count one) and fraud (id., § 532, subd. (a); count two). According to the
    probation report, appellant induced an acquaintance to loan him approximately $80,000
    by showing her fraudulent documents supposedly demonstrating his ability to repay the
    loan.
    The trial court sentenced appellant to two years imprisonment. The probation
    report recommended sentence on count two be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section
    654. At the sentencing hearing, the court made no oral pronouncement with respect to
    count two. The minute order for the hearing, however, provides the sentence on count
    two is stayed.
    1
    DISCUSSION
    Appellant contends the trial court’s failure to orally pronounce that the sentence on
    count two is stayed was not corrected by the minute order, and we should therefore
    remand to the trial court to make this oral pronouncement.1 We disagree.
    If there is a conflict between the reporter’s transcript and the clerk’s transcript,
    “the modern rule is not automatic deference to the reporter’s transcript, but rather
    adoption of the transcript due more credence under all the surrounding circumstances.”
    (People v. Rodriguez (2013) 
    222 Cal.App.4th 578
    , 586.) Accordingly, where “the clerk’s
    transcript simply clarifies a point that the reporter’s transcript left ambiguous,” courts
    will “conclude that the minute order correctly recites the [trial] court’s ruling.” (In re
    Byron B. (2004) 
    119 Cal.App.4th 1013
    , 1018.)
    Here, the minute order simply clarifies what the reporter’s transcript left
    ambiguous: that the sentence on count two is stayed. Appellant and the People both
    agree this is the correct sentence. We conclude the minute order correctly states the
    court’s sentence and no remand is necessary.2
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    1
    Appellant initially claimed an additional error relating to sentencing credits, but
    subsequently withdrew that claim.
    2
    Because we reject appellant’s claim on the merits, we need not decide the People’s
    contention that appellant forfeited it.
    2
    SIMONS, Acting P.J.
    We concur.
    NEEDHAM, J.
    BRUINIERS, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A142463

Filed Date: 5/15/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021