Appellant was convicted of second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and special findings that a principal was armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, sec. 12022, subd. (a)(1).) He was sentenced to three years on the robbery, one year for the firearm enhancement, and a one year consecutive sentence on the assault count. Here, the appellate court remanded for resentencing. The record did not permit intelligent appellate review of whether there was a violation of Penal Code section 654 by the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the assault because the trial court failed to explain its reasons. The opinion noted it was published as an “entreaty to the criminal trial courts to follow the sentencing rules and to make an appellate record which permits of intelligent appellate review”. . . because the failure to do so increases the workload of the court and wastes taxpayer money.