Does a court have to decide whether to sentence an indeterminate life sentence and a determinate sentence?

"Where, as here, the trial court imposes an indeterminate life sentence and a determinate sentence, it has discretion to decide whether the sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively." (People v. Galvez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1264.) In arguing that the trial court was unaware of this basic aspect of its sentencing discretion, defendant points to the following passage at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, during a discussion of various fines. The court said: "[t]he sentences in counts 3, 4, and 5, by operation of law, are consecutive to counts 1 and 2 because they havethey're determinate sentences to be served before the indeterminate sentence." The court then proceeded to advise defendant of the requirement that he register as a sex offender. Defendant's entire argument hinges on this stray reference to "by operation of law."

The trial judge is one of the most experienced judges sitting in the downtown Los Angeles central criminal court. Considering the entirety of the court's thorough explanation of its sentencing choices, we find defendant's reliance on this one errant comment is without merit. (See, e.g., People v. DeJesus (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1, 30 [trial court's statement "about imposing the term required by law" was not indicative of a failure to appreciate its sentencing discretion].)

Page 11

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.