Froehle

Thomas Louis Froehle, Jr., appeals from the imposition of a 16-year prison sentence, contending:

1. The court erroneously imposed a sentence of greater than six years following a commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC);

2. The court erred in applying Penal Code section 1170.95 to avoid the double-the-base-term limitation of Penal Code section 1170.1, 1 and his counsel’s failure to argue the inapplicability of section 1170.95 in the trial court constituted ineffective assistance of counsel;

3. The court failed to give reasons for imposing the upper term on the principal charge and consecutive sentences on the remaining counts, and did not give him all the custody credits to which he was entitled.

In the published portion of this opinion, we reject his first argument. However, we find merit in the second and third contentions and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

*1213 I

On March 23, 1984, Froehle pleaded guilty to 15 counts of burglary (§ 459) and 1 count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. 1). Counts 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 were residential burglaries, and therefore designated as burglaries in the first degree. (§ 460.)…

Concurring and Dissenting.—I concur with parts I, II, III, and V of the majority opinion.

However, I respectfully dissent from part IV of the majority opinion requiring the court, notwithstanding a negotiated plea agreement, to state its reasons for imposition of the upper term on count 9 and for consecutive subordinate terms.

*

Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 14, 1990.

See footnote, ante, page 1210