In People v. Tillotson (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 517, the Court reversed in part and affirmed in part a judgment of conviction against Linda Jean Tillotson, and remanded for further proceedings, including resentencing. In this appeal, Tillotson raises four issues regarding sentencing after remand, namely, whether: (1) the trial court erred by imposing and staying sentence on one of the two three-year enhancements ordered stricken in People v. Tillotson; (2) the trial court's imposition of consecutive terms violated Tillotson's rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) the trial court erred in deferring presentence custody credit calculation to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; (4) the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect an aggregate jail sentence of 180 days rather than 270 days. In People v. Tillotson, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 517, the Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. The Disposition stated: "The judgment is affirmed in all respects except as follows. "1. The trial court is directed to modify the judgment as to count 23 to reflect a conviction for an attempted violation of Penal Code section 166, subdivision (a)(4). As modified, the judgment as to count 23 is affirmed except as to sentencing. The matter is remanded for resentencing on count 23. "2. The judgment as to count 4 is reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. "3. The three-year enhancement pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c) is stricken on count 24. "4. The matter is remanded on counts 5, 20, 22, and 24 for a determination and findings on whether the sentences on those counts are to run consecutively to each other or consecutively to the sentence on count 1 but concurrent to each other." (People v. Tillotson, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 547-548.) In People v. Tillotson, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at page 524, the Court concluded: "The trial court erred by imposing two three-year enhancements under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c)--one on count 1 and the other on count 24." The Disposition directed the trial court to strike the three-year enhancement imposed on count 24. (Id. at p. 548.) After remand, the trial court acknowledged the enhancement was "entered in error" but stayed punishment on the enhancement rather than striking it. The trial court initially imposed consecutive sentences on counts 5, 20, 22, and 24, stating only "'a consecutive sentence is required by law.'" (People v. Tillotson, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.) The Court concluded the trial court must state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, and therefore reversed the imposition of consecutive sentences on counts 5, 20, 22, and 24. (Ibid.) The Court remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences, and to state reasons if imposing consecutive sentences. (Ibid.)