How has section 1204 of the California Criminal Code been interpreted and interpreted by courts?

Defendant contends that it was prejudicial error and a violation of due process to impose a consecutive, as opposed to a concurrent, sentence. He argues that the imposition of a consecutive sentence was based on mere speculation and was not pursuant to evidence as required by section 1204. We first observe, on considering this contention, that the trial judge was familiar with the evidence adduced at the trial and defendant's admissions with respect to prior felonies. His consideration of these matters was, of course, not violative of section 1204. (People v. Gillette, supra, 171 Cal.App.2d 497, 504, 341 P.2d 398; People v. Rudolph, supra, 28 Cal.App. 683, 685--686, 153 P. 721.