People v. Littlejohn CA5

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the aggravated term on count 1 and a consecutive term on count 2 without providing a statement of reasons for its sentencing choice. The People counter defendant forfeited his claim by failing to object at the time of sentencing. We agree that defendant has forfeited this claim. The trial court has “broad discretion to decide … whether to run the prison terms on multiple offenses concurrently or consecutively.” (People v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562, 579.) California Rules of Court, rule 4.4252 sets forth factors affecting the decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, which include the presence of circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The trial court must generally state its reasons for choosing to impose consecutive sentences. (Rule 4.406(b)(5).) Likewise, in imposing an upper term, “[t]he court shall state the reasons for its sentence choice on the record at the time of sentencing.” (§ 1170, subd. (c).) However, “ ‘complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the…