Trial court erred in finding it was mandated to impose consecutive sentences for the current felony convictions based on the Three Strikes law. Defendant was convicted of residential robbery and other offenses. A prior strike conviction was found true. At sentencing, the trial court found the Three Strikes law required it to impose consecutive sentences on all of the current serious felony convictions. On appeal defendant raised several sentencing claims, including that the trial court had discretion to impose concurrent terms. Held: Reversed and remanded. Prior to the enactment of the Three Strikes Reform Act (Prop. 36), a trial court had discretion to impose concurrent sentences (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (a)(6)-(7)), where there were multiple convictions for serious or violent felonies that were committed on the same occasion or arose from the same set of operative facts, and where consecutive sentencing was not mandated by some other statute. (People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508.) The court analyzed a change that Proposition 36 made to the sentencing provisions in the voter initiative version of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (a)(7)), and agreed with People v. Torres (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 185. Trial courts have the discretion to impose concurrent sentences on serious and violent felony convictions committed on the same occasion and arising from the same set of operative facts. Those serious felonies must then be sentenced consecutively to the sentences for non-serious convictions.