In People v. Paul (1998) 18 Cal.4th 698, the defendant and his codefendant were found guilty of attempted carjacking and attempted murder. The jury also found the codefendant was personally armed within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The defendant challenged the enhancement added to his sentence based upon a principal in the offense being armed, as the jury did not return a special verdict as to him on that issue. ( 1158a.) In Paul, the particular arming allegation at issue required a jury finding under section 1158a, as opposed to section 1158. The defendant acknowledged pretrial that there was an applicable section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) allegation against him. This was again confirmed, by defendant's silence, when the court, prior to commencement of trial, indicated that the section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) allegation could affect defendant's potential sentence. The jury was instructed that should they find either defendant guilty of the substantive offenses, they would also have to determine whether a principal was armed within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). However, the verdict forms furnished to the jury, and the instructions on a principal being armed during commission of the offense, personal use of a firearm and intentional infliction of great bodily injury, were only directed at the charges filed against the codefendant. The jury was not instructed that they must also return a special finding as to the defendant on the section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) allegation. The jury's special verdicts as to defendant found him guilty of attempted carjacking and attempted murder, which was not willful or premeditated. As to the codefendant the jury returned verdicts finding him guilty of attempted carjacking, attempted murder, which was not willful or premeditated, personal use of a firearm during commission of both offenses, that he did not inflict great bodily injury, and that the codefendant was a principal armed during commission of both offenses. The clerk's minute order indicated the jury entered true findings as to the section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) allegations as to defendant. The abstract of judgment for defendant also indicated the true findings of the section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) allegations. In imposing sentence on defendant, the court noted the probation report did not reflect the true findings as to the section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) allegations, as they pertained to defendant's sentence. However, the court indicated this did not make a difference, as these particular findings made against the codefendant were applicable to defendant as well under the provision of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) which allows for the enhancement even when the particular defendant was not personally armed with the firearm. Defendant's counsel did not object to the court's imposition of the section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements on the attempted carjacking sentence or on the attempted murder sentence. ( People v. Paul, supra, 18 Cal. 4th at pp. 700-705.)