In People v. Escarcega (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 853, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, as a lesser included offense of murder (count 1). The crime arose from a gang fight between rival gangs. The defendant committed manslaughter when he shot a rival gang member in the abdomen. (Id. at p. 857.) The defendant argued on appeal that his manslaughter conviction was void because he was incorrectly convicted of violating former subdivision 3 of section 192 (now codified as 192, subd. (c)), which concerns vehicular manslaughter. The court in Escarcega acknowledged the defendant was not charged with vehicular manslaughter and could not have been convicted of the crime because the evidence showed he died of a bullet wound. The court in Escarcega concluded it was clear that the cited code section cited in the verdict was clerical error, particularly since the jury instructions referred to the correct crime of manslaughter. The Escarcega court explained: "It is clear that the only problem presented is one of a clerical error in that the subdivision number of Penal Code section 192 was incorrectly designated. The jury was instructed on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. It is evident that the court clerk gave the jury a verdict form with a wrong Penal Code subdivision inadvertently designated, and the jury, in returning that form, simply desired and intended to find defendant guilty of a manslaughter, which, under the circumstances here present, was a 'lesser included offense.' It is, of course, clear that more care should have been taken in the preparation of the forms of verdict so that a question such as is now presented would not arise. Counsel for defendant apparently understood what was intended by the verdict since no objection was then made to the form of the verdict. When read in the light of the record, it is clear what the jury intended in its determination. In giving effect to the manifest intention of the jury, the clerical error will be disregarded. The verdict ultimately returned can be understood only as evidencing the jury's determination to convict defendant of manslaughter. Necessarily, it was of a kind other than that which is committed in the driving of a motor vehicle. Under these circumstances, we may and should correct the verdict and judgment as entered by striking therefrom the incorrect subdivision reference." (People v. Escarcega, supra, 273 Cal.App.2d at p. 858.)