DISCUSSION

On appeal, Ambriz contends his conviction for attempted unlawful taking of a

vehicle charged in count 10 must be reversed because it is a lesser included offense of

attempted grand theft of a vehicle charged in count 11. Respondent properly concedes

the point. A defendant cannot be convicted of grand theft of an automobile and unlawful

driving or taking of a vehicle where, as here, both offenses are based on the same act.

(People v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115, 128.) An attempt to commit either offense

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 requires the defendant to take a "direct but ineffective step toward committing" the

offense with the intent to commit that offense. (See CALCRIM No. 460 [Attempt];

§ 664.) It therefore follows that attempted unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle is a

lesser included offense of attempted grand theft of an automobile when both crimes are

based on the same act, the attempted unlawful taking of the same vehicle.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified by striking the conviction for attempted unlawful

driving or taking of a vehicle (§ 664; Veh. Code, § 10851) as charged in count 10. As so

modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended

abstract of judgment and to forward the amended abstract of judgment to the San Diego

County Sheriff's Department.

PRAGER, J.*

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3