Does the Attorney General's abstract of judgment reflect the oral pronouncement that defendant's sentence for the offense charged as count 4 is to be served concurrently with the base term count?

The Attorney General contends that defendant's abstract of judgment does not reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement that defendant's sentence for the offense charged as count 4 is to be served concurrently with the offense charged in count 2, the base term count and, therefore, the abstract of judgment should be corrected. During its oral pronouncement of sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant's sentence for the offense charged in count 4 to be served concurrently with the offense charged in the base term count, count 2. This however is not reflected in the abstract of judgment. "[A] trial court's oral sentence governs if it is different from what appears in a minute order or an abstract of judgment [citations]." (People v. Wynn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1221; People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Accordingly, the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect

Page 12