The Court of Appeal agreed with appellant that one of the jury’s true findings on a luring count—that he violated Penal Code section 288.3 by intending to violate section 288.3—was unauthorized and must be stricken. Because section 288.3 is not among the offenses specifically listed in section 288.3, subdivision (a), it cannot serve as a basis for a conviction under the statute. Additionally, the court agreed with appellant the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive term of eight months on count five (§ 288.3). The punishment for a violation of section 288.3 is “state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.” (§ 288.3, subd. (a).) Ordinarily, the punishment for an attempt is “one-half the term of imprisonment prescribed upon a conviction of the offense attempted.” (§ 664, subd. (a).) As such, the court should have imposed a four month term rather than an eight month term for count 5.