P.

DISCUSSION

Choice of Upper Term Defendant first asserts his upper term sentence was impermissibly based on the nature of the 2011 crime giving rise to the revocation of his probation, and not on his 2008 crime. (See Cal. Rules Court, rule 4.435(b)(1)2 [―The length of the sentence must be based on circumstances existing at the time probation was granted, and subsequent events may not be considered in selecting the base term or in deciding whether to strike the additional punishment for enhancements charged and found.‖]; see also People v. Goldberg (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1160, 1163 [This rule ―was intended to preclude the possibility that a defendant‘s bad acts while on probation would influence his sentence upon revocation of probation.‖].) Defendant has forfeited this issue, however, by failing to raise it in the trial court. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 [―[C]omplaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.‖]; People v. Steele (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 212, 226 [waiver of objection to use of particular aggravating factor if not raised in trial…