What is the proper exercise of the court's discretionary sentencing power under section 1170.1 of the California Criminal Code?

Respondent's argument overlooks the fact that the sentence the trial court actually imposed is consistent with the proper exercise of the court's discretionary sentencing choices. The sentencing triad for first degree burglary is two, four, or six years in state prison. ( 461, subd. (a).) Section 1170.1, subdivision (a) permits the trial court to impose consecutive determinate sentences for multiple convictions arising out of the same or separate proceedings, but "does not mandate the length of the terms selected . . . or require selection of the lower, middle or upper term." (People v. Miller, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 216.) Here, the trial court could have arrived at the sentence it imposed by choosing the low term of two years for the first degree burglary, designating the two-year term for the attempted second degree robbery as the principal term, and then sentencing the burglary as the subordinate term at one-third the midterm, or 16 months. That the trial court did not properly articulate its sentencing choices or adequately explain its reasons did not render the sentence unauthorized.