Is there a showing of prejudice in the abstract of judgment in a case involving an error in the escape rule instruction?

Edwards contends that the cumulative effect of the purported instructional errors deprived him of due process. He urges that the "irrelevant and misleading escape rule instruction," coupled with the erroneous omission of the requested pinpoint instruction, was prejudicial, even if neither was prejudicial on its own. He avers that the failure to give the pinpoint instruction amplified the error in giving the escape rule instruction. But his arguments regarding both purported errors rest essentially on the same analysis and, as we have explained, in light of the instructions given and the parties' arguments, there is no showing of prejudice. As we have found any assumed errors to be nonprejudicial, we reach the same conclusion with respect to the cumulative effect of any purported errors. (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1235-1236; People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 885.)

4. Correction of the abstract of judgment