Filed 6/1/17 P. v. Lopez CA5




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAXIMILIANO LOPEZ III,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073218

(Super. Ct. Nos. F13909258 & F15903675)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

Defendant Maximiliano Lopez III was convicted of various crimes in two cases. On appeal, he contends the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The People agree, as do we. We direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment, and we affirm as modified.
On January 15, 2016, defendant was sentenced in two cases. In case No. F15903675, the trial court sentenced him on the Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) conviction (count 3) to two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and on the Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) conviction (count 1) to eight months, doubled to 16 months pursuant to the Three Strikes law, for a total term of five years four months.
In case No. F13909258, the trial court sentenced defendant on the section 273a, subdivision (a) conviction (count 3) to two years, plus three years for a section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement, for a total term of five years, to be served concurrently to the term in case No. F15903675. The court also sentenced him on the Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (b) conviction (count 1) to a 16-month concurrent term and struck the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement. And it sentenced him on the Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) conviction (count 2) to a 16-month concurrent term and struck the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement.
The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects that the total term of five years in case No. F13909258 is to be served consecutively to the term of five years four months in case No. F15903675, resulting in a total term of 10 years four months. The trial court’s oral judgment controls and “[w]hen an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, this court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties.” (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89.) Accordingly, we order the trial court to amend the abstract to reflect a concurrent term in case
No. 13909258, resulting in a total of five years four months.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment: the total term of five years in case No. F13909258 is to be served concurrently to the term in case No. F15903675, resulting in a total term of five years four months. The court is directed to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.