People v. Mahan - Non-Precedential Opinion Modification

CA Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed February 27th, 2026

Detected March 2nd, 2026

Summary

The California Court of Appeal modified a non-precedential opinion in People v. Mahan (D086126). The court amended the written probation order to conform to the oral pronouncement, striking a condition allowing searches of computers and recordable media.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, issued a non-precedential opinion in the case of People v. Mahan (Docket No. D086126). The court modified the written probation order to align with the trial court's oral pronouncement, specifically striking condition 6(n) which would have allowed searches of the defendant's computers and recordable media. This modification was based on the concession by the People that the oral pronouncement should control over the written order.

This decision highlights the principle that oral pronouncements of judgment in criminal cases take precedence over written orders when discrepancies arise. For legal professionals and courts, this serves as a reminder to ensure written judgments accurately reflect oral rulings to avoid potential appeals and modifications. While this is a non-precedential opinion, it reinforces established legal precedent regarding the hierarchy of oral versus written judgments. No specific compliance deadline or penalty information is applicable to regulated entities as this is a specific case modification.

What to do next

Ensure written probation orders accurately reflect oral pronouncements of judgment.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Mahan CA4/1

California Court of Appeal

Citations: None known
Docket Number: D086126
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 2/27/26 P. v. Mahan CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D086126

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD303978)

NEMUEL MAHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with
directions.
Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Attorney
General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and
Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nemuel Mahan pled guilty to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594,
subds. (a), (b)(1)), admitting he damaged personal property worth more than
$400. The trial court granted Mahan two years of probation with various
terms and conditions. Mahan contends, the People concede, and we agree,
the probation order should be modified to reflect the court’s oral
pronouncement of judgment.
At sentencing, the court placed Mahan on probation and reviewed the
terms and conditions it would impose. Defense counsel objected to probation
condition 6(n), requiring Mahan to submit his computers and recordable
media to search. Counsel argued that no nexus existed between that
condition and Mahon’s crime. The prosecution did not object. The court
agreed and stated: “I’ll impose the rest of the conditions as requested with
the following modifications: . . . I’ll delete the computers and recordable
media at 6(n).” This change is not reflected in the written probation order in
which the court checked the box including computers and recordable media.
We accept the People’s concession that the written order granting
formal probation should be amended to strike probation condition 6(n) to
conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. “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; People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition
of judgment is an oral pronouncement; the record of the oral pronouncement
of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order and abstract of judgment].)
“As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between a [written order] and the

2
actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time,
and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal.”
(Scott, supra, at p. 1324.)
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded and the superior court is directed to modify
the order granting formal probation to reflect the deletion of “computers and
recordable media” on line 6(n). In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed.

DO, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

RUBIN, J.