Appellant was convicted of both corporal injury to a cohabitant he was in a dating relationship with and forcible rape. The court agreed with appellant that these convictions were based on the same set of facts and that no separate objective existed, and therefore one of these convictions had to be stayed under Penal Code section 654. The Court of Appeal also found that the language employed by the trial court when sentencing appellant suggested a belief it lacked discretion under section 1170.15 and was required to impose a consecutive sentence for one of the counts. Because the trial court did not exercise discretion to consider whether a concurrent term was warranted, the court remanded for resentencing.