People v. Barrera CA4/1

Filed 11/15/24 P. v. Barrera CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083233

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD248065)

JUAN MANUEL BARRERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin H. Urbanski and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Juan Manuel Barrera was sentenced to 24 years in prison for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Then, after a change

in sentencing laws, the trial court resentenced Barrera to 23 years total. When doing so, the court declined to dismiss Barrera’s prior strike, finding it within the spirit of the Three Strikes Law “in light of the nature of the present felonies and the prior violent felony convictions, [and] the particulars of Mr. Barrera’s background, character, and prospects.” On appeal, Barrera claims the court’s “process” in considering the prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 was “flawed” based on a purported failure to “recognize the importance of” Barrera’s youthfulness at the time of his prior strike offense, mental illness, and childhood trauma. In support, he cites where these factors appear in other sentencing laws wholly separate from Romero rulings. Barrera, however, did not raise this process issue during sentencing, and thus he forfeited it. Regardless, he does not provide any authority that requires the trial court to consider these other sentencing factors in determining whether to dismiss his prior strike. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum opinion. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.) I. We first address forfeiture. When sentencing issues arise, it is the responsibility of the defendant or defense counsel to bring them to the trial court’s attention; otherwise, they generally are forfeited. (People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118.) This is because “complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,” as these issues are “easily prevented and corrected if called to the court’s attention.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353, 356.) “‘It is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial