How does the court review a denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of abuse of review?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, B281511 (Cal. App. 2018):
9. An appellate court reviews a denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. (People v. Rices (2017) 4 Cal.5th 49, 92.) There is no dispute that if the trial court employed the proper standard of review when considering appellant's new trial motion, the court's denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion.
10. The abstract of judgment differs from the oral pronouncement of sentence in a number of respects, but there is no need to detail them. It is well settled "[a]n abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court's oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize." (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) When an abstract does not reflect the orally pronounced judgment, this court has inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties. (Ibid.) We will direct the trial court to file an amended abstract of judgment.
11. The abstract of judgment reflects the court imposed concurrent sentences on counts 4 and 5.
"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.
