Full Opinion

Filed 10/30/26 P. v. Lewis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Amador) THE PEOPLE, C104618 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR31862) v. DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant Daronta Tyrone Lewis asked this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have done so and find no arguable error. There is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the clerk’s minutes and abstract of judgment, however. We order the trial court to correct the minutes and abstract to conform to the judgment. BACKGROUND In July 2021, while Lewis was incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, a correctional officer observed him covering the window of his cell with pieces of paper. The officer asked him to stop, but Lewis ignored the request. When the officer entered the cell to remove the paper, Lewis approached him and spat in his face. The People charged Lewis with one count of gassing an officer (Pen. Code, § 4501.1, subd. (a)) and alleged a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 1 subds. (a)-(d)).1 The People also alleged two circumstances in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421. Lewis pleaded guilty, pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, to gassing an officer. The parties’ plea agreement provided that he would be sentenced to three years in prison, with execution of the sentence suspended, and three years’ formal probation, with Lewis waiving his right to the two-year probation term limit under Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.). In October 2023, the trial court sentenced Lewis according to the terms of the plea agreement and placed him on three years of formal probation. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction fee (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)), and a $300 probation revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of probation (§ 1202.44). On January 5, 2024, a probation officer filed a petition to revoke Lewis’s probation based on his failure to obey all laws. The petition alleged that Lewis had committed several offenses in Solano County, including robbery (§ 211); false imprisonment (§ 236); destroying, erasing, or concealing evidence (§ 135); evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2); and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). He was later convicted of two of those offenses (robbery and evading a peace officer) and sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years four months. At the probation violation hearing, Lewis waived his right to a hearing and admitted violating the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked his probation and imposed one-third the middle term of his three-year suspended sentence. The court ordered that the sentence be served consecutively to his sentence for robbery and evading a peace officer for a total sentence of eight years four months. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Lewis timely appealed. DISCUSSION Lewis’s appointed counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised Lewis of his right to file a supplemental brief; Lewis did not file such a brief. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable error on appeal. We have, however, identified two discrepancies between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the clerk’s minutes and abstract of judgment. Both the minutes and the abstract of judgment state that, when sentencing Lewis on the probation violation, the trial court imposed and suspended a $300 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 and lifted the stay on the $300 probation revocation fine under section 1202.44. The court, however, did not orally impose either fine.2 When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment or the clerk’s minutes, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186; People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.) Accordingly, we order the trial court to correct the minutes and abstract of judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment. 2 To the extent that the fine under section 1202.45 is mandatory, the People have not asked us in this appeal under People v. Wende to correct as unauthorized the trial court’s failure to impose the fine. 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the clerk’s minutes and prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. /s/ FEINBERG, J. We concur: /s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/ KRAUSE, J. 4