Does the Attorney General have any authority or authority to control the interpretation of the abstract of judgment in a sexual assault case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Carrillo, 2d Crim. No. B231085, Super. Ct. No. KA090599 (Cal. App. 2012):
Appellant contends, and the Attorney General agrees, that the abstract of judgment erroneously states that appellant was convicted on count 3 of "continuous sexual abuse." The jury convicted appellant of violating section 288.7, subdivision (b), oral copulation/sexual penetration of a child 10 years old or younger. Page three of the abstract of judgment further states that consecutive sentences of "30 years to Life" were imposed on counts 3 and 8 but the sentence was 15 years to life on each count. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
Page 8
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
