Coelho

I. Introduction

Under the “Three Strikes” law, the court must impose a consecutive sentence for each current offense “not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts . . . -” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (c)(6), (7), 1170.12, subd. (a)(6), (7).) Conversely, if the current offenses were committed on the same occasion and arose from the same set of operative facts, the court has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. (People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, 512-513 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 941 P.2d 64 ]; People v. Hall (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 128, 137-138 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 690 ]; People v. Bell (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 282, 294 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 415 ].) Thus, to determine the scope of its discretion, a court must know the factual basis of each conviction. In this case, we hold that if the jury could have based its verdicts upon a number of unlawful acts and the court cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt the particular acts the jury selected, the court should assume that the verdicts were based on those acts that would give it the most discretion to impose concurrent terms.

II. Statement of the Case

In 1996, the Santa…