In what circumstances will the court order that the determinate sentence run concurrent to the indeterminate sentence for murder?

In the event of a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the trial court's oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) We may correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment. (Id. at p. 186.)

In its oral pronouncement of judgment, which is reflected in the reporter's transcript, the court ordered the seven year determinate sentence for appellant's drug offenses run concurrent to the 15 years to life sentence for murder (count one). The court issued two abstracts of judgment, one for the determinate sentence and one for the indeterminate sentence. Neither reflects the court's oral pronouncement that the determinate sentence run concurrent to the indeterminate sentence. We presume that the court reporter accurately reported the proceedings at the sentencing hearing. (People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 552, fn. 6.) Accordingly, we direct the trial court to correct the abstracts of judgment to reflect that the determinate sentence of seven years is to run concurrent to the indeterminate sentence of 15 years to life.

Page 14