Pursuant to PC 667.6, the trial court imposed consecutive upper terms on each of appellant’s 84 convictions for sexual assault (PC 220(a)(2)). The Court of Appeal rejects the argument that the convictions were ineligible for consecutive sentencing under PC 667.6. The court also holds that the trial court’s determination that the offenses were committed “on separate occasions” (PC 667.6(d)) did not violate defendant’s jury-trial right. Finally, the court finds that the imposition of upper terms without jury findings on the aggravating circumstances was prejudicial and requires remand under SB 567.
^