People v. Wong CA2/6

Facts The facts are set forth at pages 3-6 of the slip opinion in Wong I. Because the facts are not pertinent to the issues in the present appeal, we do not reiterate them here. As to Counts 6 and 7, Appellant Was Not Resentenced to Concurrent Terms When the trial court orally resentenced appellant, it expressly imposed a consecutive 15-year term for each of the five one-strike convictions (counts 1-5). It did not mention counts 6 and 7. “Accordingly,” appellant argues, “as a matter of law, the

3 sentences on counts 6 and 7 must run concurrently with each other and with the sentences on counts 1-5.” Appellant’s argument is based on the rule that, when a person is convicted of two or more crimes and the trial court “fails to determine how the terms of imprisonment shall run in relation to each other, . . . the term of imprisonment on the second or subsequent judgment shall run concurrently.” (§ 669, subd. (b).) Appellant contends we cannot assume the original sentence’s consecutive terms as to counts 6 and 7 carried over to the resentencing proceedings. He asserts that this is because “whenever a court remands a case for resentencing, all components of the sentence are in play at…