Is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment for determinate sentences in a criminal case sufficient to be corrected on appeal?

A clerical mistake appears in the abstract of judgment for the determinate sentences. The two determinate sentences imposed against appellant, counts 2 and 4, are erroneously listed in the abstract of judgment as counts 1 and 3. An appellate court has jurisdiction to order correction of an abstract on its own motion so that the abstract accurately reflects the sentencing court's oral judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Accordingly, we order the determinate abstract of judgment modified to reflect convictions under counts 2 and 4, respectively.