The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect the jury’s intent to convict the appellant of violating Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (a), rather than subdivision (b)(1). Although the appellant was charged and convicted under subdivision (b)(1), the information and jury instructions clearly establish the prosecution’s intent to to charge and convict him under subdivision (a). Additionally, the evidence supports convictions under subdivision (a) rather than subdivision (b)(1). Because the prosecution’s intent is clear, the error in the form of the verdict is immaterial. (People v. Jones (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 693, 710–711; People v. Paul (1998) 18 Cal.4th 698, 707.). The court further held that the protective order issued by the trial court must be stricken because it was not authorized under section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1), as the appellant was not convicted of any of the offenses encompassed by section.