People v. Green CA4/1

Filed 12/26/23 P. v. Green CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081409

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD290772)

THOMAS CHRISTOPHER GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed. Sally Patrone, 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 Urbanski, Donald W. Ostertag, and Juliet W. Park, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Thomas Christopher Green shot a homemade firearm on a crowded public boardwalk, hitting two victims with shrapnel. A jury convicted Green

of two counts of assault with a firearm. For each count, the jury also found true that Green personally and intentionally discharged the firearm. After weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, the trial court struck one firearm enhancement, ordered the low-term sentence on the other, and imposed a total prison term of seven years. Green appeals his sentence. We affirm. As we resolve this case by memorandum opinion, we do not elaborate on factual and procedural background beyond what is required for our analysis. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854.) I. First, Green contends the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike both firearm enhancements. The People respond that the trial court considered the applicable factors and “struck a reasonable balance” by striking one and imposing the low term on the other. The People thus argue that the trial court’s decision was neither irrational nor arbitrary. We agree with the People. We review the decision not to strike an enhancement for abuse of discretion. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374.) A trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is “so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (Id. at p. 377.) Green, as appellant, bears the burden to “clearly” show the decision was irrational or arbitrary. (Id. at p. 376.) If Green fails to do so, we presume the trial court “acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives.” (People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322 (Parra Martinez).) Here, the trial court “balanc[ed] out” the aggravating and mitigating factors before issuing its sentence. It considered “the totality of the evidence in this case” as well as “the arguments of all sides.” The trial court noted