Is a sentence for possession of methamphetamine a valid abstract of judgment?

lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case." (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) When the trial court initially imposed the two-year sentence, defendant stood convicted of a felony. At that time, his sentence was lawfully imposed under the circumstances of his case. Defendant has since completed his sentence. The later reduction of the felony to a misdemeanor by Proposition 47 does not render this original sentence unauthorized.

For the same reasons, we reject defendant's claim that the abstract of judgment should be set aside because it is void on the face of the record. (People v. Amaya (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 379, 386.) " ' "A judgment is void on its face if the court which rendered the judgment lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief which the court had no power to grant." ' " (Ibid.) Although the abstract of judgment reflects defendant was sentenced to a two-year term for his conviction of possession of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code former section 11377, subdivision (a), this does not render the abstract of judgment void on its face. Defendant's sentence comported with the law at the time of his offense, and the court did not exceed its jurisdiction during sentencing. The later designation of the felony as a misdemeanor does not transform the sentence, which he has already completed, into one that is void on its face.