The imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate the right to a jury trial when the facts in support of the consecutive terms were found by a jury. The factors cited by the court in support of consecutive terms included the fact that the acts involved separate victims, and separate acts occurring on different occasions over a long period of time. The Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that a jury was required to make the decision about whether consecutive terms should be imposed, noting that Blakely only requires that factors used to enhance a sentence be found true by a jury. Without deciding whether Blakely applies to factors used to impose a consecutive sentence, the court further found that the factors cited by the trial court in this case were all necessarily found true by the jury.