People v. Miller CA3

DISCUSSION

I. Imposition of the Upper Term

Defendant contends the case should be remanded for resentencing because the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion or abused its discretion in imposing the upper term for robbery. The People assert that defendant forfeited the point by failing to raise it in the trial court, and the court properly understood and exercised its discretion. We conclude the claim was forfeited and any error was not prejudicial. A. Background Defendant has a criminal history dating back to 1996. In 1996, he was adjudicated a ward of the court when as a 15 year old he admitted to having sexual intercourse with an eight-year-old female victim on three occasions and with a nine-year-old female victim on one occasion. Among his seven adult misdemeanor convictions are a 1999 conviction for a violation of section 12020, subdivision (a), manufacture/sale/possession of a deadly weapon, a 2005 Washington state conviction for attempted battery causing substantial bodily harm, and a 2006 conviction for a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, taking or driving a vehicle without consent. Defendant also had a 2001 Washington state felony conviction for…