Does the Attorney General have any authority to impose concurrent sentences on counts 9 and 10?

Defendant argues that, as with count 8, the trial court did not understand it had the discretion to impose concurrent terms on counts 9 and 10. Focusing on the trial court's reference to concurrent or consecutive terms, the Attorney General counters that this shows the trial court understood its discretion. In reply, defendant claims this language referred simply to the decision on whether to stay sentences pursuant to section 654. Defendant also claims the trial court's references to People v. Jones (2001) 25 Cal.4th 98 (Jones) was erroneous, as that case addressed consecutive sentences for forcible sex crimes, and therefore did not apply here.

Page 16