legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Baek CA4/3

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Baek CA4/3
By
05:01:2018

Filed 3/26/18 P. v. Baek CA4/3







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARNOLD MIN BAEK,

Defendant and Appellant.


G054812

(Super. Ct. No. 14HF0260)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Donahue, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Alissa Bjerkhoel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Arnold Min Baek appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of three robbery offenses. Baek argues the indeterminate abstract of judgment should be corrected. The Attorney General agrees. We affirm the judgment as modified.
FACTS
Baek posed as a seller of items on Craigslist to lure victims to a certain location where he would rob them at gunpoint. On one occasion, Baek robbed Danny B. at gunpoint while they drove in Danny B.’s car to verify the authenticity of a Rolex watch (count 1). On another occasion, Baek robbed Daniel P. at gunpoint while Daniel P. sat in his parked car waiting to purchase a Mercedes automobile (count 2). On the final occasion, Baek arranged to sell a Mercedes automobile to an undercover detective and officers arrested Baek as he sat in a Starbucks (count 4).
A jury convicted Baek of kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1), all further statutory references are to the Penal Code (count 1)), second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c) (count 2)), and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, subd. (a), 211, 212.5, subd. (c) (count 4)). The trial court sentenced Baek to life with the possibility of parole on count 1.
DISCUSSION
Baek argues the indeterminate abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the jury convicted him of kidnapping to commit robbery and not “kidnapping to commit robbery, rape, oral copulation.” The Attorney General agrees.
“‘[A] court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. [Citations.] The power exists independently of statute and may be exercised in criminal as well as in civil cases. [Citation.]’” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Such clerical errors may be corrected at any time. (Ibid.) Clerical errors include inadvertent errors made by the court which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion. (People v. Davidson (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 205, 210.)
Here, the record demonstrates Baek was charged with and convicted of kidnapping to commit robbery. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court pronounced Baek was guilty of kidnapping to commit robbery. Yet the indeterminate abstract of judgment reflects Baek was guilty of “kidnapping to commit robbery, rape, oral copulation.” This error is a clerical error and may be corrected at any time. (People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070 [abstract of judgment “is a contemporaneous, statutorily sanctioned, officially prepared clerical record of the conviction and sentence”].) The indeterminate abstract of judgment must be modified to reflect the jury convicted Baek of “kidnapping to commit robbery.”
DISPOSITION
The abstract of judgment is ordered modified to reflect that the jury convicted Baek of “kidnapping to commit robbery” in violation of section 209, subdivision (b)(1), in count 1. The clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the modified verdict and to forward a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Operations. As modified the judgment is affirmed.



O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:



BEDSWORTH, J.



ARONSON, J.





Description Arnold Min Baek appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of three robbery offenses. Baek argues the indeterminate abstract of judgment should be corrected. The Attorney General agrees. We affirm the judgment as modified.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 4 views. Averaging 4 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale