California Court of Appeal Jan 6, 2016 No. E061781Unpublished
Filed 1/6/16 P. v. Watson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E061781
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1300918)
AARON BRANDON WATSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Jon D. Ferguson,
Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., and Lise S. Jacobson,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Aaron Brandon Watson appeals after his plea of no contest to possession
of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)—
count 2), maintaining a place for the use of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,
provides: “A person currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea,
of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under [Proposition 47]
that added this section . . . had [Proposition 47] been in effect at the time of the offense may
petition for a recall of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction
in his or her case to request resentencing in accordance with Sections 11350, 11357, or
11377 of the Health and Safety Code, or Section 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 of the
Penal Code, as those sections have been amended or added by [Proposition 47].”
A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377 is an offense eligible for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a). However, to avail himself
of that section, defendant must file a petition for recall of his sentence after the judgment is
final. (People v. Shabazz (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 303, 307-308.) In his reply brief,
defendant requests this court grant him “a window of time” to file a petition for resentencing
under Penal Code section 1170.18 “so that the status of his contested conviction can be
resolved at a single proceeding.” The correction of the abstract of judgment and minute
orders involves a clerical task, not a “proceeding.” We therefore deny defendant’s request
without prejudice to his filing a petition for resentencing after the judgment becomes final.
7
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to issue a new abstract of judgment and similarly correct the
minute orders for the hearings of June 19, 2013, August 26, 2013, and August 6, 2014,
reflecting that defendant entered a plea of no contest to possession of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)—count 2), and maintaining a
place for the use of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366—count 4), as well
as admitting to having served two prior prison term convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5,
subd. (b)).
The amended abstract of judgment and corrected minute orders should also reflect the
trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, i.e., that defendant was sentenced to
consecutive terms of three years in state prison for count 2, eight months for count 4, and
two years for the prior prison term convictions, for a total term of five years eight months in
state prison.
The trial court is further directed to send copies of the amended abstract of judgment
and corrected minute orders to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
HOLLENHORST J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court's oral pronouncement of judgment controls over conflicting minute orders and the abstract of judgment, requiring clerical corrections to reflect the defendant's actual plea and sentence. The court further held that a defendant seeking resentencing under Proposition 47 must file a petition in the trial court rather than seeking such relief on direct appeal.
Issues
Whether the abstract of judgment and minute orders must be corrected to reflect the defendant's oral plea and sentence.
Whether the defendant is entitled to immediate resentencing under Proposition 47 on direct appeal.
Disposition. Affirmed with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.”