years is the maximum sentence a judge may impose without any additional findings by a jury. However, HRS § 706-668.5 (1993) provides in relevant part that “[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms run consecutively.” The imposition of prison terms in consecutive sequence, then, does not result in “an increase beyond the maximum authorized statutory sentence,” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 496 n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348, ie., beyond one that can be imposed simply on the jury verdict and, thus, does not implicate Apprendi and its progeny. However, the court’s discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence is still circumscribed. See, e.g., State v. Vellina, 106 Hawai'i 441, 450, 106 P.3d 364, 373 (2005) (<HOLDING>); State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai'i 127, 150, 890
holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available  life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole holding that omission was not plain error holding that it was plain error for the circuit court to sentence the defendant to consecutive prison terms based upon uncharged alleged misconduct holding that plain error review was not available for alleged improperly admitted testimony holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error