In this case, the trial court resentenced appellant after the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation advised the court of an unlawful sentence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal held the trial court did not exercise its sentencing discretion in an informed manner because the court (1) failed to recognize it had to conduct a full resentencing hearing (and was required to merely strike the illegal component of the sentence); and (2) erroneously believed that a consecutive sentence for the attempted murder conviction was mandatory.
^