People v. Bristow CA3

Filed 4/23/25 P. v. Bristow CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C101275

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR201322792)

DAVID EARL BRISTOW, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING Defendant and Appellant. REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on April 9, 2025, be modified as follows:

On page 2, first full paragraph, delete the second sentence and replace with: “Applying the presumption of correctness to this case, we discern no error. To the extent defendant contends the trial court might have misunderstood the standard to be applied, it was his duty to object or raise this assertion in the trial court. Having failed to do so, we conclude his appellate contention is forfeited.” The full paragraph shall now read:

1

Defendant now contends that in declining to further reduce his sentence, the trial court abused its discretion in focusing on defendant’s current dangerousness but not his future dangerousness. Applying the presumption of correctness to this case, we discern no error. To the extent defendant contends the trial court might have misunderstood the standard to be applied, it was his duty to object or raise this assertion in the trial court. Having failed to do so, we conclude his appellate contention is forfeited. We will affirm the judgment.

On page 4, after the first paragraph of the Discussion, insert the following paragraphs:

We review the trial court’s decision to strike the great bodily injury enhancement, but not the firearm enhancement, for an abuse of its sentencing discretion. (People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298.) “ ‘ “[T]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary.” ’ ” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376 (Carmony).) A trial court’s use of “ ‘an incorrect legal standard’ ” demonstrates an abuse of discretion. (People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225, citing People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156.) However, “ ‘ “[i]n 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.” ’ ” (Carmony, at pp. 376- 377.) Here, defendant contends the trial court’s failure to expressly rule upon his future dangerousness demonstrates that the court misunderstood its obligation to consider it. However, the record does not affirmatively show that the trial court misunderstood its resentencing obligations. (Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376-377.) If defendant believed the trial court failed to consider his future dangerousness, it was incumbent upon him to raise the issue in the trial court.