Filed 3/27/17 P. v. Bigos CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES FRANCIS BIGOS,

Defendant and Appellant.
D070185



(Super. Ct. No. SCS283333)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.
Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Eric A. Swenson, Lynne G. McGinnis and Kristine A. Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted James Francis Bigos of car theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The court in April 2016 imposed a 365-day term in local custody, and probation with a condition requiring Bigos to submit to a warrantless search of his computer and electronic devices. On appeal, Bigos initially argued that the probation condition was unconstitutional; however, Bigos's counsel subsequently informed this court by letter and accompanying documentation that Bigos is currently serving a prison term in local custody, and his probation order was revoked. Counsel opined that Bigos's argument regarding the validity of his probation condition is moot. We agree. Bigos also contends, the People concede, and we agree, the probation order should be modified to reflect the court's oral pronouncement of judgment. We therefore remand the matter with directions set forth below.
DISCUSSION
I.
We need not discuss the facts of the underlying case because they are not relevant to our disposition of this appeal. " 'A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.' " (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 370, 380.) In light of the probation revocation, we cannot provide the parties with any practical, effectual relief. We therefore conclude Bigos's challenge to the probation condition is moot.
II.
The parties agree that there is a discrepancy between the court's oral pronouncement of probation conditions and its written order. During sentencing the court stated: "The court will adopt each and every other recommendation with
the following modifications: Paragraph . . . 2T is modified to 'Restitution to be determined.' " This change is not included in the court's final order, which erroneously requires Bigos to pay a $3000 restitution fine as part of a total amount of $4,937. The correct total amount Bigos should pay is $1,487 as follows: $820 under Penal Code section 1465.7, subdivision (a); $80 under Penal Code section 1465.8; $60 under Government Code section 70373; $154 under Government Code section 29550; $39 under Penal Code section 1202.5; $4 under Government Code section 76000.10; $300 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b); and $30 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (l). Under these circumstances, the oral pronouncement prevails. "As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between a [written order] and the actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time, and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal." (People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324.)









DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded and the superior court is directed to modify the order granting formal probation to require Bigos to pay $1,487 in fines and fees, consistent with this opinion. The judgment is affirmed as so modified.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:


NARES, Acting P. J.


AARON, J.