Does the abstract of judgment refer to a conviction for second degree robbery as being for second-degree burglary?

^2. In reviewing the record, we discovered an unraised clerical error. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186-188.) Defendant was charged in count 10 with second degree robbery ( 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), the verdict form states that his conviction on count 10 was for second degree robbery, and the minute orders following both defendant's convictions and his sentencing hearing show that defendant's count 10 conviction was for second degree robbery. However, although the abstract of judgment lists the correct statutes for defendant's conviction on count 10 ( 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), the abstract describes the conviction as being one for second degree burglary. To avoid any potential confusion over this conviction in the future, we order the abstract of judgment to be corrected to describe defendant's conviction on count 10 as being for second degree robbery.