Does oral copulation and urination in a woman's mouth influence the sentencing of a convicted sex offender?

offender." (Id., subd. (b).)¹⁶ This is an indication jurors based both convictions on oral copulation. In our view, however, it is insufficient to foreclose the trial court's sentencing discretion, particularly in light of the fact, as we noted ante, that jurors clearly credited the evidence both acts oral copulation and urination in M.'s mouth took place. (Cf. People v. Bradley, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 770 [jurors made no finding, and there was "complete absence" of evidence in record to support finding had it been made, that defendant entertained multiple objectives].)