People v. Wright CA2/6

Filed 8/19/20 P. v. Wright CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B303503 (Super. Ct. No. GA082955) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

STEVEN LAWRENCE WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is appellant’s second appeal in this matter. Steven Lawrence Wright appeals from the judgment entered after we had remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to exercise its discretion whether to strike sentencing enhancements. Appellant does not claim that, on remand, the trial court abused its discretion. He claims that the court’s minute order and abstract of judgment do not correctly reflect its oral pronouncement of judgment on remand. “In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment.” (People v. Scott (2012)

203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324.) “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.) We direct the trial court to correct the minute order and abstract of judgment so that they conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment. In all other respects, we affirm. Procedural History On count 1 appellant was convicted of first degree murder. On count 2 he was convicted of attempted first degree murder. As to each count, the jury found true allegations (1) that a principal had intentionally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1),1 and (2) that the offense had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). The trial court found true allegations that appellant had been convicted of a prior serious felony within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and a prior serious or violent felony within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) He was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 130 years to life plus a consecutive five-year term for the prior serious felony conviction. Appellant appealed from the judgment. In an unpublished opinion, we remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to exercise its discretion whether to strike in furtherance of justice (§ 1385) the section 12022.53 firearm