People v. Anderson CA3

Filed 7/29/15 P. v. Anderson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078228

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM042033)

v.

BENJEMIN JOSEPH ANDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Benjemin Joseph Anderson pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance in a jail facility. (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a).)1 During the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally imposed a mid-term sentence of three years in county prison. However, the trial court’s sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment reflect a four-year sentence. On appeal, defendant contends the minute order and abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offense.

1

pronouncement of judgment. The People agree, and so do we. Accordingly, we order the minute order and abstract of judgment corrected to be consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant was an inmate in the Butte County Jail. During a strip search, correctional officers found a baggy containing 3.1 grams of marijuana in a secret pocket sewn into defendant’s underpants. Defendant was charged with one count of possession of contraband in jail (§ 4573.6, subd. (a)), and ultimately entered a no contest plea. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and stated: “[T]he Court is going to -- for the crime of Penal Code section 4573.6(a) . . . I’m designating that the princip[al] term and imposing the mid term of 3 years in the county prison.”2 Thereafter, the trial court issued a sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment indicating that defendant had been sentenced to four years in county prison. The sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment both characterize the four-year sentence as the “middle term.” DISCUSSION Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the minute order and abstract of judgment do not reflect the actual sentence imposed. He argues the minute order and abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, and the People agree.