Does the Attorney General have any authority to strike "person present" from the abstract of judgment in a criminal case?

Appellant asserts that the abstract of judgment erroneously states that the conviction on count 3 is for first degree burglary with a "person present." The "person present" allegation was struck the first day of trial pursuant to People v. Singleton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1332. The Attorney General agrees that the "person present" language should be deleted from the abstract of judgment to reflect the judgment imposed.

The Attorney General argues that the abstract of judgment incorrectly states that the sentence on count 3 was stayed pursuant to section 654. We disagree. The trial court stated that it was imposing an eight year sentence on count 3, "concurrent to count 4, the burglary with explosives, by virtue of [section] 654." The reference to section 654 means the sentence on count 3 was stayed. (See People v. Danowski (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 815, 824 [section 654 applies to sentencing under Three Strikes law].)

"Section 654 precludes multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an indivisible course of conduct. [Citations.] If, for example a defendant suffers two convictions, punishment for one of which is precluded by section 654, that section requires the sentence for one conviction to be imposed, and the other imposed and then stayed. [Citation.] Section 654 does not allow any multiple punishment, including either

Page 8

concurrent or consecutive sentences. [Citation.]" (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591-592.)