What is the effect of the trial judge's comments about the felon in possession of a firearm during a sentencing hearing?

Defendant contends in reply that this conclusion cannot stand because it is "premised on [an] alleged implied finding that is contradicted by the court's express statements." We disagree. The trial judge's comments about the felon in possession of firearm charges, discussed above, are in the larger context of a lengthy discussion between court and counsel about whether some of the sentences were required mandatory consecutive sentences because this was a two strike case. As the court stated near the outset of the sentencing hearing (after having granted defendant's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and striking one of the strikes), "this is a two strike case, and I want the lawyers to understand the following: [] As I look at it, the only question I have here in terms of issues of calculations, et cetera, is whether or not there's mandatory consecutive sentences or discretionary consecutive sentence." The trial court and counsel then went on to discuss how many "separate events" there were for sentencing purposes, and to what extent the sentences were required by law to be "mandatory consecutive." It is clear from the transcript that the trial court and counsel were referring to the application of section 1170.12, and particularly subdivision (a)(6), which provides that "notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (b), the court shall adhere to each of the following: . . . [] (6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to this section."¹⁶

Page 27