People v. Burke CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying probation, sentencing him to the middle term instead of the low term, and not striking the sentence enhancement for causing great bodily injury. We disagree, as defendant has forfeited all his claims on appeal. I Defendant Fails To Make A Cogent Argument Regarding The Trial Court’s Decision Not To Impose Probation Appellants carry the burden to demonstrate error by making some cogent argument that is supported by legal analysis and citation to the record. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 161.) We are not required to “scour the record unguided.” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th

Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

3 266, 287.) Nor are we obliged to make arguments for an appellant or “speculate about which issues counsel intend to raise.” (Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4.) We may and do “disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions [the appellant] wants us to adopt.”…