How have courts addressed the issue of concurrent sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (c) of the California Penal Code?

In People v. Riffey (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 419, 217 Cal.Rptr. 319, the court addressed the identical issue and provided a historical and analytical background which is very useful.

"[T]here was originally perfect congruence between subdivision (c) and section 288a, subdivision (c). [Unlike enhancements], implicit in this original congruent sentencing scheme was the requirement that the specific sex crime be charged and that the finding be made beyond a reasonable doubt by the trier of fact. This court took note [188 Cal.App.3d 187] of that congruence in People v. Stought (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 740 [171 Cal.Rptr. 501] ..., rejecting a contention that the full consecutive term imposed under subdivision (c) upon conviction for violation of section 288a, subdivision (c) was an enhancement required to be pleaded and proved at trial.... 'The consecutive sentence permitted by Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (c), is based on the crime for which convicted; no additional factual finding incidental to another charge is necessary.' (People v. Stought, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at pp. 742, 743 [171 Cal.Rptr. 501]; italics added...." (171 Cal.App.3d at pp. 423-424 [217 Cal.Rptr. 319], emphasis in original.) ²