What is the effect of the court's decision not to impose a sentence on the robbery conviction of defendant's second-degree felony-murder conviction?

As we have discussed, the trial court sentenced defendant to the mandatory lesser sentence for count one, life imprisonment without parole. ( 190.2, subd. (a).) The court's oral pronouncement of judgment failed to impose any sentence for defendant's robbery conviction (count two). The abstract of judgment indicates the court stayed imposition of a sentence on count two pursuant to section 654. The minute order is silent as to count two, though it notes pages one through nine of the probation report are imposed as modified. The probation report recommended that any time imposed for count two be stayed pursuant to section 654. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Defendant argues the sentence

Page 21

on count two must be stayed pursuant to section 654. The People do not contend otherwise, but request that we remand the matter to the trial court so that it may exercise its discretion and correct the discrepancy between its oral pronouncement of sentence, minute order and abstract of judgment. We agree with defendant that the sentence on count two had to be stayed because section 654 bars separate punishment for the robbery where it necessarily formed the basis for his first-degree felony-murder conviction and the finding on the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegations. (People v. Hensley (2014) 59 Cal.4th 788, 828.) We shall direct the court to impose and stay sentence on the robbery conviction.