After inadvertently discharging the jury, if the jury verdict is irregular or incomplete, the court retains jurisdiction to reconvene the jury if the jury has not yet left the court’s control. After the jury heard the underlying offenses and convicted appellant of all counts, the court thanked the jury and advised it that it was excused. Before the jury left the box, however, the prosecuting attorney reminded the court that the bifurcated priors had yet to be determined. The court determined that it had the power to reconvene the jury. But appellant, instead, of opting for a jury trial, waived trial on the prior conviction and admitted it. The appellate court rejected appellant’s claim that the trial court had lost jurisdiction once it verbally excused it. Under Penal Code section 1164, the court loses jurisdiction if a complete verdict is rendered or, when the verdict is incomplete or irregular, where the jury has left the court’s control. Here, as the jury was still in the box and, therefore, not exposed to outside influences, and the verdict was incomplete, the court had jurisdiction to reconvene it. (People v. Shaffer (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 939.) The 15 percent limitation on presentence custody credits of Penal Code section 2933.1 applies only where the current offense is one of the violent felonies listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c). Here, because appellant was convicted of serious felonies, rather than violent ones, the 15 percent limitation on her presentence time credits was error.