People v. Webb CA2/7 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/5/24 P. v. Webb CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, B328113
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA027587)
v.
JEROME WEBB,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed with
directions.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Yun K. Lee,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Jerome Webb appeals from an order denying resentencing
under Penal Code section 1172.751 after the superior court found
Webb was not entitled to resentencing to strike a sentence
enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b), because at
sentencing the trial court struck the enhancement. Webb
contends, the People concede, and we agree that although the
superior court was correct that the sentence enhancement was
stricken at Webb’s 1996 sentencing, the abstract of judgment
must be corrected to reflect this.
Accordingly, we affirm the order but direct the superior
court to correct the abstract of judgment to conform to the 1996
oral pronouncement of judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to the probation report, on January 31, 1996
Webb “engaged in a mini-crime spree in the South Bay and Long
Beach area where he kidnapped, robbed, beat, sexually assaulted
and terrorized four female victims.” Webb was convicted by a
jury of assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce
great bodily injury, kidnapping, robbery, and multiple sex-related
offenses. The trial court sentenced Webb under the three strikes
law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) to a life term with the
possibility of parole after seven years (doubled under the three
strikes law), plus 38 years eight months.
At the September 26, 1996 sentencing hearing, the trial
court stated, “The court strikes the remaining allegation under
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
Penal Code section 667.5 (b) inasmuch as that’s been used to
double Mr. Webb’s sentence.” The September 26, 1996 minute
order likewise stated that at the sentencing hearing the
“remaining allegation per 667.5(B) P.C. is ordered stricken.”
(Capitalization omitted.) However, the amended abstract of
judgment dated September 14, 1998 stated the one-year
enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b), was stayed
(not stricken).
On November 9, 2022 the case was set for a resentencing
hearing pursuant to section 1172.75. That section provides that
“[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January
1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for
any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually
violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.”2
Section 1172.75, subdivision (b), provides a schedule under which
the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation and the county correctional administrators must
identify persons in custody serving sentences that include an
enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Section 1172.5, subdivisions (c) and (d), provide for resentencing
by the superior court.
On December 1, 2022 the superior court found, consistent
with the determination by the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, that Webb was not entitled to
2 Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021,
ch. 728, § 3) added section 1171.1, which was later renumbered
as section 1172.75.
3
resentencing because the trial court at sentencing struck the
section 667.5, subdivision (b), allegation.
DISCUSSION
Webb contends, the People concede, and we agree the
superior court must correct the abstract of judgment so that it
conforms with the oral pronouncement of the trial court on
September 26, 1996. (See People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831,
855 [“Any discrepancy between the judgment as orally
pronounced and as recorded in the clerk’s minutes or abstract of
judgment is presumed to be the result of clerical error.”]; People
v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [an appellate court may
order “correction of abstracts of judgment that [do] not accurately
reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts”].)
As discussed, the oral pronouncement of judgment stated
the one-year sentence enhancement under section 667.5,
subdivision (b), was stricken, as did the minute order, but the
abstract of judgment stated the enhancement was stayed.
4
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. The superior court is directed to
prepare an amended abstract of judgment consistent with the
court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The clerk of the
superior court is ordered to forward a copy of the amended
abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
FEUER, J.
We concur:
SEGAL, Acting P. J.
MARTINEZ, J.
5