State v. Bowles
In State v. Bowles, 173 Ariz. 214, 216, 841 P.2d 209, 211 (App. 1992), the judge stated orally at the sentencing hearing that the sentences would be concurrent, but the minute entry stated that they were to run consecutively.
The Court found sufficient evidence in the record that the trial court judge intended that the sentences be consecutive, despite the remark at the sentencing hearing.
The trial court clearly stated on two occasions that the plea agreement called for the sentence to be consecutive to the parole term.
The trial court clearly stated at both the change of plea hearing and the sentencing hearing that the sentence was to be consecutive per the plea agreement. Id.