What evidence supports the inference that the trial court knew and understood the extent of its discretion to impose concurrent concurrent sentences on each charge?

The conduct of the trial court supports the inference it knew and understood the extent of its discretion. Because the 40-year prison sentence on each count was mandatory, the only possible relevancy of evidence in mitigation was to guide the court's determination whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. The trial court's understanding of its discretion to impose concurrent sentences is manifested in its election to review the probation report, invite and hear argument from counsel at the sentencing hearing, its inquiry whether the prosecution submitted a victim impact statement, and its express consideration of mitigating factors. If the trial court believed it had no discretion whatsoever, it had no reason to engage in this conduct. As noted in People v. Leung (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 482, 501, "had the court believed that consecutive terms were mandatory, it would not have stated reasons for their imposition since none would have been required."

Page 16