Does the Attorney General have a valid argument that a sleep break in time contributed to a separate sentence for rape and oral copulation?

^7. As will be discussed, the trial court imposed separate terms for the rape and oral copulation counts because "I find that the sex acts engaged in were not on the same occasion, because a sleep break in time occurred." The court did not make a similar finding for the false imprisonment sentences, but we may, and do, imply a finding to that effect. (See People v. Brents, supra, 53 Cal.4th 599, 618; People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626 ["In the absence of any reference to Penal Code section 654 during sentencing, the fact that the court did not stay the sentence on any count is generally deemed to reflect an implicit determination that each crime had a separate objective"].)

Defendant also lays considerable emphasis on the fact that the prosecutor took a different approach from the Attorney General's current position. But no question of estoppel, waiver, or invited error may be based upon the prosecutor's opinion, because the legal issue is the court's sentencing choices. (See People v. Perez, supra, 23 Cal.3d 545, 549-550, fn. 3.)