People v. Speck CA4/2 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 8/24/15 P. v. Speck CA4/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       E061228
    v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. SWF1102604)
    DANIEL TAHOE SPECK,                                                      OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Albert J. Wojcik, Judge.
    Affirmed and remanded with directions.
    John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney
    General, Arlene A. Sevidal, and Amanda E. Casillas, Deputy Attorneys General, for
    Plaintiff and Respondent.
    The trial court placed defendant Daniel Speck on probation and ordered him to
    serve 365 days in jail after a jury convicted him of misdemeanor assault and of battery
    1
    with serious bodily injury. Defendant argues, the People concede, and this court agrees
    that: (1) defendant’s sentence for misdemeanor assault should be reduced to a maximum
    of 180 days; and (2) the minute order should be corrected to show the trial court waived
    rather than suspended the presentence incarceration fee.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURE
    On September 9, 2011, during a party at defendant’s home, defendant punched
    and hit a guest after the guest punched a hole in the wall of defendant’s home. Other
    party goers attacked the guest as well. The guest suffered a broken nose and fractured
    facial bones.
    On April 8, 2014, a jury convicted defendant of misdemeanor simple assault
    (Pen. Code, § 240) 1 and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)).
    On May 6, 2014, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence for the
    battery conviction and placed defendant on probation for four years, with a condition of
    probation that he serve 365 days in jail, with credit for 148 days. On the assault
    conviction, the court sentenced defendant to 365 days in jail, to be served concurrently
    with the sentence for battery. Among other fines and fees, the trial court waived the
    $10,539 presentence incarceration fee under section 1203.1c based on defendant’s lack of
    ability to pay.
    This appeal followed.
    1   All section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
    2
    DISCUSSION
    1. Defendant Should be Resentenced on the Misdemeanor Assault Conviction
    The jury convicted defendant of misdemeanor simple assault under section 240.
    The trial sentenced defendant to 365 days in county jail. However, under section 241, the
    maximum punishment for misdemeanor simple assault is 180 days in county jail. Thus,
    the sentence is unauthorized by law and defendant can challenge it on appeal without
    having objected in the trial court. (People v. Scott (1994) 
    9 Cal. 4th 331
    , 354).
    The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing on this count.
    2. The Minute Order Should be Corrected to Show the Court Waived the
    Presentence Incarceration Fee
    The record transcript shows the trial court waived the $10,539 presentence
    incarceration fee based on defendant’s lack of ability to pay. However, the minute order
    for the sentencing hearing incorrectly states that the trial court suspended the fee.
    As a general rule, the record will be harmonized when it is in conflict. (People v.
    Smith (1983) 
    33 Cal. 3d 596
    , 599.) “‘[A] discrepancy between the judgment as orally
    pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error.’”
    (People v. Williams (1980) 
    103 Cal. App. 3d 507
    , 517; see also In re Daoud (1976) 
    16 Cal. 3d 879
    , 882, fn. 1 [trial court could properly correct a clerical error in a minute order
    nunc pro tunc to conform to the oral order of that date if there was a discrepancy between
    the two].)
    Therefore, we will remand this case to the trial court to correct the minute order to
    3
    reflect that the trial court waived the presentence incarceration fee.
    DISPOSITION
    Affirmed and remanded with directions to the trial court to resentence defendant
    on the misdemeanor simple assault conviction and to correct the minute order for May 6,
    2014 to reflect that the trial court waived the presentence incarceration fee.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    RAMIREZ
    P. J.
    We concur:
    HOLLENHORST
    J.
    CODRINGTON
    J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E061228

Filed Date: 8/24/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/25/2015