Imposing a Consecutive Term In California
In People v. Gutierrez (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 1634, 278 Cal. Rptr. 748, the trial court failed to state reasons for imposing a consecutive term.
In his concurring opinion, Presiding Justice Kline argued that, even though the judgment was being affirmed, the issue would have been resolved more efficiently by remand and resentencing without consideration of whether the error was harmless.
In part, he stated:
"Reversal would not have required a retrial, but at most the preparation of a new probation report, transportation of the defendant to court, a review by judge and counsel of their files, and a hearing, of probably less than 10 minutes, at which counsel would offer their recommendations and the court would impose sentence." ( Id. at p. 1646, (conc. opn. of Kline, P.J.).)