P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that he was

convicted of assault with a deadly weapon rather than his actual conviction of assault

by force likely to produce great bodily injury. He maintains that he is aggrieved by the

difference because assault with a deadly weapon constitutes a felony strike conviction

and is a violent felony; thus, as it remains, defendant may face enhanced sentencing

should he reoffend and have his credit for time served limited. The People concede

the issue. We agree.

3 The jury found defendant not guilty of first degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5) as alleged in count 1, and was unable to reach a verdict on count 2, assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The People later dismissed count 2.

3 Appellate courts have inherent power to correct clerical errors contained in

abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the judgment. (People v. Mitchell

(2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) The distinction between assault with a deadly weapon

and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury is important because the

former is a serious felony, which counts as a “strike” and can double the…