Is there any evidence that the trial court would have exercised its discretion not to impose concurrent indeterminate sentences?

The remaining question is whether " 'the record shows that the trial court would not have exercised its discretion even if it believed it could do so.' " (People v. Gamble (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 891, 901.) The People urge a remand is unnecessary given the trial court's statements at the sentencing hearing. In brief, the court indicated it would not impose mitigated sentences on the determinate terms due to the circumstances and impact of the crimes and expressed its belief that defendant should remain imprisoned for the remainder of his life. That said, the court stated it was sympathetic to defendant's argument concerning the length of the consecutive indeterminate terms, while showing no awareness of its discretion to impose any concurrent sentences. Since the record does not conclusively establish what the court would have done had it known about its discretion, we conclude, out of an

Page 18