What is the test for a motion to grant a defendant a new sentencing hearing?

court for a new sentencing hearing" because the trial court is now authorized to grant defendant's previously denied motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and impose the low term in order to avoid or mitigate the consequences of the statutorily mandated sentence enhancement. We agree with defendant.

An aggregate sentence is not a series of "'discrete and severable components capable of being separated out and corrected. "To the contrary, the components of an [aggregate sentence] are properly viewed as interdependent when calculating and imposing sentence . . . ."'" (People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 613.)

Indeed, "[a] judge's subjective determination of the value of a case and the appropriate aggregate sentence, based on the judge's experiences with prior cases and the record in the defendant's case, cannot be ignored. A judge's subjective belief regarding the length of the sentence to be imposed is not improper as long as it is channeled by the guided discretion outlined in the myriad of statutory sentencing criteria." (People v. Casteneda, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 614.)