In this defendant’s appeal, the People’s request to correct the abstract of judgment, which omitted fines and penalty assessments that the trial court imposed when orally pronouncing sentence, was denied because an error in the abstract is not an appealable order. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court of Appeal instructed that a request for correction should be addressed to the trial court clerk, with copies of the reporter’s transcript and the abstract of judgment attached. This would, according to the court, make it unnecessary to address these matters in appeals. The trial court erred in imposing a “third-strike” sentence of 25 years to life for a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol which was to run concurrent with the sentence imposed for drunk driving, both of which arose from a single incident of drunk driving. The concurrent sentence imposed for the excess blood alcohol count should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654. However, appellant’s two 1983 arson convictions constituted separate “strike” priors, even though separate punishments for them would have been barred under Penal Code section 654.