When will a court grant a defendant concurrent sentencing for a drug possession charge?

We agree with the trial court. Although the court in People v. Martinez, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1589, recognized the loss of concurrent sentencing as potential prejudice, in that case concurrent sentencing, "although not guaranteed, was a real possibility." (Id. at p. 1597.) The defendant had been arrested on March 25, 1991, for drug possession but was released after agreeing to cooperate with police. He did not hear from the police thereafter. In July 1991, defendant was arrested on other charges, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three years in prison. A complaint was filed against the defendant on the original drug charge on May 28, 1992, but nothing more was done on the matter until after defendant was released from prison on April 29, 1993. Defendant was arrested on the drug charge on November 23, 1993. (Id. at pp. 1591-1593.) Inasmuch as the defendant had been sentenced to three years on another matter and the drug possession charge was minor in comparison, concurrent sentencing was a realistic possibility in that case.

Here, defendant was found in violation of his parole and returned to prison for 12 months, of which he served only six. Even if defendant had been tried soon after his arrest, it is not likely he would have been sentenced until he had nearly served his parole violation term. At any rate, because defendant had a prior strike, he was ineligible for concurrent sentencing unless the court exercised its discretion to strike the strike. (See Pen. Code, 1170.12, subd. (a)(8).) The court later denied defendant's request to strike the strike. Under these circumstances, the possibility of concurrent sentencing was not a "real possibility." (People v. Martinez, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1597.)