Does a court abuse its discretion by imposing a full consecutive term for Count Two of the Robbery and Aggravated Kidnapping under Section 667.6(c) of the Criminal Code?

We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a full consecutive term for Count Two under section 667.6(c). Because the trial court could have imposed a full consecutive term for Count Two under either Section 667.6(c) or 667.6(d), defendant's claim under the latter section is moot. Accordingly, we do not reach it. Even assuming the court erred in finding the offenses involved separate occasions under Section 667.6(d), it is not reasonably probable defendant would receive a more favorable sentence on remand because the court would impose the same sentence under section 667.6(c). (See People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216, 233 [use of improper factors for sentencing not grounds for reversal where trial court would impose the same sentence based on the violent nature of the crime].)

B. The Imposition of Separate Terms for Robbery and Aggravated Kidnapping Under Section 654