P. v. Garrett
Filed 3/15/07 P. v. Garrett CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GRAN DESTINO GARRETT, Defendant and Appellant. | E040277 (Super.Ct.No. RIF090313 & M19393) O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. James A. Edwards, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed with directions.
Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, and Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Gran Destino Garrett appeals from a petition for continued involuntary treatment filed pursuant to Penal Code section 2970, et seq.[1] Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial courts minute order fails to properly reflect the trial courts verbal commitment order. The People agree with defendant. For the reasons set forth below, we shall order the trial court to amend the minute order to accurately reflect the trial courts verbal order.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]
The underlying offense for the section 2970 petition was one count of making criminal threats in violation of section 422. Defendant pled guilty to violating section 422 on September 19, 2001, and the trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years. However, because defendant received a total of 770 days credit, he was immediately released on parole.
After a parole violation, defendant was sent to the California Institute for Men. Thereafter, he was transferred to Atascadero State Hospital under section 2684. Defendant was subsequently found to meet the mentally disordered offender criteria and was committed under section 2962 on or about February 9, 2004.
On February 14, 2006, after a jury trial, defendant was found to be a mentally disordered offender within the meaning of section 2970. He was committed to Atascadero State Hospital for one year. The trial court found the commitment to expire on August 5, 2006.
II. ANALYSIS
The Minute Order Must Be Amended
Defendant contends, and the People agree, that the minute order must be corrected to accurately reflect the trial courts verbal order.
On February 14, 2006, after the jury concluded that defendant was a mentally disordered offender within the meaning of section 2970, the trial court verbally imposed the following commitment order:
All right. The jury, having found [defendant] does meet the criteria of a mentally disordered offender, I will order he be remanded to the department of mental health for treatment for one year to expire August 5th 2006 . . . .
The minute order, however, fails to reflect the foregoing verbal order by the trial court. Instead, the minute order dated February 14, 2006, states as follows:
Commitment is as follows: [Defendant] is committed to custody of [Department] of Mental Health. [Defendant] is to be kept in a locked facility for a period of not less than two years and should be confined at Atascadero State Hospital[.] Commitment expires on 8-5-06. (Capitalization omitted, italics added.)
The People concede that the oral pronouncement is controlling. (See People v. Crenshaw (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1415-1416.) Therefore, the minute order should be amended to reflect the trial courts verbal imposition of the commitment order.
III. DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to amend the minute order dated February 14, 2006, to accurately reflect the trial courts verbal commitment order for one year, not two. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ King
J.
We concur:
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
/s/ Miller
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] The factual and procedural background is summarized in brief because the only issue on appeal concerns the correction of a minute order.
