People v. Stangl CA3

DISCUSSION

I Upper Term Sentence Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by improperly relying on two invalid aggravating factors in imposing the upper term. He contends his trial counsel’s argument for a mitigated sentence preserved the issue for appeal. Alternatively, he contends any failure to object was the result of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The People argue defendant’s claim is forfeited for failure to object at sentencing and, in any event, his trial counsel was not ineffective because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the upper term sentence. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the upper term.

We note there is a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of conduct credits and the abstract of judgment. The trial court ordered 35 days of conduct credit and the abstract indicates 33 days of conduct credit. In light of our resolution of the credit issue, we need not address this discrepancy.

3 A trial court’s sentencing decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.) “The trial court’s sentencing discretion…