California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Buckels, B252862 (Cal. App. 2015):
A court also may apply any "additional criteria [not enumerated in the rules that are] reasonably related to the decision" to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.408(a).) "Articulation of one criterion for the imposition of a consecutive sentence is sufficient." (People v. Bravot (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 93, 98.)
The trial court sentenced Buckels to consecutive terms because there were three separate victims. "[T]he naming of separate victims in separate counts is a circumstance on which a trial court may properly rely to impose consecutive sentences." (People v. Caesar (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1061, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Superior Court (Sparks) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 1, 18.)
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.