In applying section 654 of the Criminal Code Code, can a court change the abstract of judgment to reflect that appellant was convicted of first degree residential burglary for a prior strike?

In applying section 654, "the trial court must impose a sentence on all counts, but stay execution of sentence as necessary to prevent multiple punishment. [Citations.]" (People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469.) Here the failure to impose a sentence on count 6 is an unauthorized sentence. (Id., at pp. 1472-1473.) Pursuant to Alford, we modify the sentence on count 6 to reflect that appellant was sentenced to one-third the midterm (four months) for attempted criminal threats, that the sentence was doubled to eight months based on the prior strike, and that the eight month sentence was stayed pursuant to section 654. The abstract of judgment must also be corrected to state that the conviction on count 6 was for attempted criminal threats rather than the completed crime.

Page 17

Appellant contends, and the Attorney General agrees, that the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the sentence imposed on counts 1 and 8 for first degree residential burglary. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [appellate court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in abstract of judgment].) On counts 1 and 8, the trial court imposed 16-month terms (one-third the midterm), doubled the sentences based on the strike prior, and ordered the 32-month sentences to run consecutive to the sentence on count 3. The abstract of judgment incorrectly states that a low term was imposed on counts 1 and 8, and the "consecutive full term" box is checked rather than the "1/3 consecutive" box. It fails to note that count 8 conviction is a serious felony and must be corrected.