People v. Felise CA3

Filed 6/28/16 P. v. Felise CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C080138

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15F03749)

v.

ANTHONY PAUL FELISE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Anthony Paul Felise was charged with unlawfully carrying a loaded concealed handgun within a vehicle, misdemeanor possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Defendant pled no contest to the first two charges. In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the trial court placed defendant on felony probation for a term of five years with various terms and conditions, including 120 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court inadvertently failed to dismiss the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge, an implied term of the parties’

1

agreement. According to defendant, it was the mutual intention of the parties that the court would do so. The People concede the point. We agree with the parties and will remand with directions to the trial court to dismiss this charge. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. DISCUSSION Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. (People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808.) Clerical error can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. (Ibid. [judge misspoke].) A court “has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705; see also People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) A plea bargain is an agreement negotiated between the defendant and the People and approved by the trial court. (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929-930.) Each party benefits -- the People by obtaining a guilty or no contest plea and often an agreed term of imprisonment, and the defendant by obtaining less severe punishment, including in some cases through the dismissal of one or more counts. (Id. at p. 930.) “Because a ‘negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract,’ it is interpreted according to general contract principles. [Citation.] Acceptance of the agreement binds the court and the parties to the agreement. [Citations.] ‘ “When a guilty [or nolo contendere] plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Segura, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 930-931.) “ ‘The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. [Citation.] If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs. [Citation.] On the other hand, “[i]f the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it.” [Citations.]’