People v. Miller CA3

Filed 4/28/16 P. v. Miller CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079533

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 10F06893, 11F08442, 14F07528) v.

BRODERICK MILLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Broderick Miller appeals from his convictions for possession of methamphetamine for sale, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and unlawful infliction of corporal injury. He contends the minute order and abstract of judgment do not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment and must be corrected to impose the mandatory minimum restitution and parole revocation fines. The People concede. We will order the minute order and abstract of judgment corrected to reflect the judgment and affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND1 In May 2015, defendant faced multiple charges in three separate cases -- cases Nos. 10F06893, 11F08442, and 14F07528 -- for offenses including domestic violence, making criminal threats, and various drugs and weapons charges. Each information also alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction. As part of a global resolution of all three cases, defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale in case No. 10F06893, being a felon in possession of a firearm in case No. 11F08442, and misdemeanor unlawful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition and another count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in case No. 14F07528. Defendant also admitted in each case that he had a prior strike conviction. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years eight months in state prison and awarded him a total of 595 days of presentence custody credits. On the issue of fines and fees, in response to defense counsel’s objection to the imposition of discretionary fines and fees, the trial court stated, “[o]nly mandatory minimum fines and fees are imposed. The Court would delete non-mandatory fines and fees as per your request . . . .” At the sentencing hearing, the trial court did not orally pronounce the amount of any restitution fines to be imposed. The fines and fees, and their statutory bases are delineated in the probation report, along with notations, corrections, and deletions. The discretionary fines and fees are deleted in the probation report. The probation report indicates a $1,200 restitution fine in case No. 10F06893, a $200 restitution fine in case No. 11F08442, and a $300 restitution fine in case No. 14F07528. The minute orders and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of