Is a convicted criminal entitled to serve consecutive sentences for a felony and a misdemeanor conviction under section 669 of the Penal Code?

Penal Code section 669 provides in relevant part: "(a) When a person is convicted of two or more crimes, whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same judge or by different judges, 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. . . . [] (b) . . . Upon 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." Defendant argues the trial court failed to expressly order consecutive sentences for the felony and misdemeanor cases before it for sentencing on September 25, 2016. Absent such an express order, the sentences must be deemed to run concurrently and presentence credit must be applied against all sentences equally. (Pen. Code, 669, subd. (b), 2900.5, subd. (a).) Defendant asks us to make a preliminary determination that the sentencing court failed to issue an order that the sentences in the felony case, case No. CR1602568, and in the misdemeanor case, case No. CR1504084, be served consecutively. (People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954.) We decline to do so because the record shows the court did expressly order consecutive sentences.