Appellant was convicted on four counts. The trial court imposed full consecutive upper terms, doubled due to a prior strike, for counts II and III. The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in imposing the upper term for count III because count III, as the lower of the two terms, was a subordinate term, and thus the trial court should have imposed one-third of the middle term (doubled by the prior strike). Furthermore, the upper term on count II was no longer proper due to the passage of Senate Bill No. 567 (“SB 567”) while the appeal was pending. SB 567 amended Penal Code section 1170, limiting the trial court’s discretion to impose a sentence greater than the middle term and mandating the imposition of the lower term if certain circumstances were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. Finally, the Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the abstract of judgment required correction because it differed from the jury’s findings and the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the sentence on counts II and III with directions to re-sentence the appellant on count II under SB 567, impose one-third of the middle term doubled for count III, and correct the abstract of judgment.