California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Valle, C050240 (Cal. App. 8/21/2007), C050240 (Cal. App. 2007):
"While there is a statutory presumption in favor of the middle term as the sentence for an offense [citation], there is no comparable statutory presumption in favor of concurrent rather than consecutive sentences for multiple offenses except where consecutive sentencing is statutorily required. The trial court is required to determine whether a sentence shall be consecutive or concurrent but is not required to presume in favor of concurrent sentencing." (People v. Reeder (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 900, 923.) A defendant who is convicted of more than one offense may receive a consecutive sentence in the court's discretion. A defendant does not have a legal right to concurrent sentencing which "makes all the difference insofar as judicial impingement upon the traditional role of the jury is concerned." (Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 309.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.