People v. Thammavongsa CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Thammavongsa contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying him a

split sentence without stating reasons for its decision.

Thammavongsa waived his right to appeal by failing to object at the time of

sentencing. (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 594-595; People v. Smith

(2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852-853.) Although a court is generally required to state its

reasons for its discretionary sentencing choices on the record, a defendant cannot

complain for the first time on appeal about the court's failure to do so. (People v. Scott

(1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 349-351, 353.) "Where defendants have pleaded guilty in return

for a specified sentence, appellate courts are not inclined to find error even though the

trial court acts in excess of jurisdiction in reaching that figure, as long as the court does

not lack fundamental jurisdiction. [Citations.] The rationale behind this policy is that

defendants who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to 'trifle

3 with the courts' by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process."

(People v. Nguyen (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 114, 122-123, italics added;…