Can a judge be found to have a preconceived purpose to grant probation?

[5 Cal.App.3d 676] It is suggested that the bracketed remarks, and those which followed sentencing ²¹ combined with the judge's earlier statements of his intention, his tirade about the inspector, and his views on pressures, demonstrate, and compel a finding of a preconceived purpose to grant probation which amounts to an arbitrary determination, a capricious disposition, and whimsical thinking such as to preclude the exercise of discriminatory judgment within the bounds of reason. (See, People v. Surplice, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d at p. 791, 21 Cal.Rptr. 826.)