People v. Yi CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant does not argue the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion. Instead, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by selecting the upper term based on the facts before the court. As defendant puts it, his “criminal history, [when] weighed against the numerous factors in mitigation, renders imposition of the upper term an abuse of discretion.” We disagree. We review the trial court’s sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.) “ ‘In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we are guided by two fundamental precepts. First, “ ‘[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.’ ” [Citations.] Second, a “ ‘decision

he had served two prior jail terms. Given the close relationship of defendant’s prior convictions to his probationary status and prior jail terms, we presume the trial court was…