Penal Code secs 1181, subdivision 6, and 1260, do not authorize an appellate court to modify a judgment to reflect convictions for two lesser included offenses upon finding insufficient evidence of a single greater offense. While fleeing from police, appellant got into the passenger seat of a man’s car and told him, “drive or I’ll kill you.” Instead of driving, the man removed the keys from the ignition and exited the car. Appellant then moved over to the driver seat and tried to get the car going, but he was apprehended before the car ever moved. On the basis of these facts, he was charged and convicted by a jury of attempted kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 209.5, subd. (a)). On appeal, he argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of this crime, because attempted kidnapping in the course of a carjacking, like a completed version of that offense, requires asportation of the vehicle. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Attorney General’s theory the appropriate remedy was to modify the judgment to two lesser, included offenses – attempted kidnapping and attempted carjacking. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1181, subd. 6, 1260.)