Does section 669 of the California Criminal Code apply to determine whether a determinate or determinate sentence should run concurrently with an indeterminate sentence?

Section 669, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: "When a person is convicted of two or more crimes, whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, . . . the second or other subsequent judgment upon which sentence is ordered to be executed shall direct whether the terms of imprisonment or any of them to which he or she is sentenced shall run concurrently or consecutively." ( 669, subd. (a).) Section 669, subdivision (b) provides, in relevant part, that "[u]pon the failure of the court to determine how the terms of imprisonment on the second or subsequent judgment shall run, the term of imprisonment on the second or subsequent judgment shall run concurrently." ( 669, subd. (b).) "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.)

Count 8 was the principal count of the determinate sentence here, and the record indicates that the court intended it to run consecutively to the indeterminate sentence, as the prosecution had recommended. The court stated, twice, that it was imposing an aggregate sentence of 20 years to life. Running count 8 consecutively was the only way to achieve that intended sentence, since the court expressly stated that count 5 was to run concurrently. The abstract of judgment supports this conclusion. It denotes the sentences on counts 5 and 8 differently and shows the total determinate term to be 13 years and the total indeterminate term to be seven years to life, the same as the aggregate term announced by the court.

We find People v. Edwards (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 436 instructive. There, the appellate court found section 669

Page 8