People v. Bravo CA4/1

facts.

3 section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)4, and whether the court properly consider postconviction factors. We have reviewed the record on appeal relevant to these issues, and we see no arguable concerns for appeal. In his supplemental brief, Bravo appears to argue that the court abused its discretion by not giving greater weight to his evidence of rehabilitation, such as laudatory chronos and certificates, education, work history, and so forth. “[W]e review for an abuse of discretion a superior court’s decision under section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(1), that reduction of a defendant’s sentence would endanger public safety.” (People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 856.) “ ‘ “[T]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.” ’ ” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376–377.) Contrary to Bravo’s unsupported assertion here, there was nothing irrational or arbitrary…