Is a failure to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences for incest and sexual battery for the same offences harmless?

Separately and alternatively, the failure to state reasons was harmless. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for incest and sexual battery, rejecting defense counsel's request for concurrent sentences, specifically because defendant lacked remorse.⁴ It felt very strongly about this. It seems clear that, if defense counsel had asked the trial court to state reasons for imposing full consecutive sentences for the forcible sexual offenses, the trial court would, once again, have cited defendant's lack of remorse. It is not reasonably probable that it would have imposed a concurrent sentence for any of the offenses. (See People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 552.)