California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cornejo, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 737, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 686, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 635, 243 Cal.App.4th 1453 (Cal. App. 2016):
We first note the trial court had no discretion but to impose a term of 20 years to life for the murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. (See 190, subd. (d), 12022.53, subd. (d).) Thus, the trial court was required to impose a term of 45 years to life on Count One ( 187). However, whether to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences with respect to the remaining counts was a discretionary decision. (See 669; People v. Shaw (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 453, 458, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 766 [trial court has broad discretion to impose consecutive sentences when a person is convicted of two or more crimes].) The trial court must state the reasons for its sentence choices on the record at the time of sentencing. [Citation.] Where the court has discretion, the imposition of a consecutive, rather than concurrent, term represents a sentencing choice. [Citations.]
[243 Cal.App.4th 1490]
[197 Cal.Rptr.3d 717]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.