In People v. Bento (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 179, there were two codefendants: Johnson and Bento. The jury announced it had reached verdicts on two counts as to Johnson and three counts as to Bento, but that it could not reach verdicts on two of the other counts as to Bento. (Id. at p. 187.) After the verdicts were read in open court, the jurors were polled, and they all affirmed that the verdicts were correct. The trial court and counsel then proceeded to discuss the counts as to which the jury had not reached a verdict. During that discussion, a juror said she was "'not absolutely sure with reasonable doubt'" about her verdicts as to Johnson. (Ibid.) The trial court declined to reconvene the jury. On appeal, Johnson claimed the trial court should have reconvened the jury after a juror expressed doubts about the verdict. (Bento, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 186.) The Bento court first held that the verdicts against Johnson were "complete within the meaning of Penal Code section 1164 when they were recorded." (Id. at p. 188.) The court reasoned, "Here, the verdicts resolved all requisite matters concerning Johnson, the jurors collectively and individually affirmed the verdicts in open court, and the trial court verified the verdicts and directed the clerk to record them." (Id., at p. 188.) The Bento court next held that the trial court did not err by failing to reconvene the jury. The court explained: "When, as here, the verdicts have been collectively and individually confirmed in open court pursuant to these sections and are complete in every detail, jurors are no longer empowered to dissent from the verdicts, and the trial court may not reconvene the jury for further deliberations on the basis of such dissent." (Id. at p. 191.)