Filed 10/13/17 P. v. Hanley CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael R. Libutti, Judge. Affirmed with directions.

Neil Auwarter, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Amanda E. Casillas, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 15, 2016, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Paullita Jeane Hanley with identity theft under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) (count 1); and grand theft under Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a) (count 2). On December 6, 2016, defendant pled guilty to count 1. On the same day, the trial court placed defendant on formal probation for three years, and ordered her to serve 180 days in county jail or the weekend work release program. On January 31, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

B. FACTUAL HISTORY

Defendant admitted that on or about April 26, 2016, she committed identity theft by willfully and unlawfully obtaining “personal identifying information of Jack Ira Harrison and using that information for an unlawful purpose and to obtain, and attempt to obtain[,] credit, goods, services, real property, and medical information without the consent of Jack Ira Harrison.” The parties stipulated that the police reports would serve as the factual basis of defendant’s plea.

DISCUSSION

A. THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD CORRECT TWO CLERICAL ERRORS ON THE SENTENCING MINUTE ORDER

Defendant contends that the trial court made two clerical errors on the sentencing minute order: (1) the minute order does not reflect the term of probation; and (2) the minute order states that a fine the court did not order is due. The People agree with defendant.

In this case, the sentencing minute order failed to provide the length of probation. The trial court, however, ordered defendant to serve three years on formal probation pursuant to the plea agreement. Moreover, as part of the plea agreement, the parties also agreed to certain terms and conditions, which were outlined on the form entitled “Felony Terms and Conditions of Probation.” The parties crossed out the terms that would not apply and informed the court that certain terms were not to be ordered. The court agreed and ordered that the “scratched out” terms would not apply. The term requiring a criminal lab analysis fee of $205 with penalties and assessments under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 was crossed out. Notwithstanding, the sentencing minute order stated that the trial court ordered the $205 fee.

Therefore, we will order the trial court to correct the sentencing minute order by removing the $205 lab analysis fee and adding that defendant is to be on formal probation for a period of three years. (See People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205 [“A clerical error is one that is made in recording the judgment”]; People v. Mitchell (001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, 187 [courts may correct clerical errors in the records at any time, and appellate courts may correct abstracts of judgment].)

DISPOSITION

The superior court clerk is directed to amend the sentencing minute order to reflect that the duration of probation as three years, and to delete the $205 criminal lab analysis fee. The clerk is further directed to forward a copy of the amended order to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.