Is there any evidence that the trial court intended to amend the verdict at the time of sentencing to a finding of first degree robbery?

7 Our examination of the record herein discloses no other matter from which it may be inferred that the omission was other than clerical in nature. The only matter which may be relevant to the issue is found in proceedings on defendant's motion for a new trial. That motion was denied after hearing immediately before the imposition of sentence. Had the court been of the view that under the circumstances of the case the first degree finding was not warranted it could have modified the verdict and found the robbery to be of the second degree. ( 1181, subd. 6; People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 760--761, 109 Cal.Rptr. 65, 512 P.2d 289.) We are thus not prepared to conclude on this record that the trial court intended a sub silentio modification of the verdict at the time of sentencing immediately after it had elected not to expressly make such modification in ruling on the motion for a new trial.