People v. Barragan CA5

DISCUSSION

I. Barragan Has Not Shown The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in

Sentencing Him Barragan raises one claim on appeal. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms on counts 1-3, 7, 9-11, 15-20, and 22- 23. He argues the trial court was unaware it had the discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences and that therefore the consecutive sentences imposed on these counts should be reversed. We disagree and affirm. A. Applicable Law “Absent evidence to the contrary, [appellate courts] presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it.” (People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 (Ramirez); see People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 (Stowell); People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 728 (Martinez).) Moreover, appellate courts “presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct,” and “ ‘ “[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.” ’ ” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666; see Martinez at p. 728.) “Thus, where a statement of reasons is not required and the record…