Does the court abuse its discretion in denying probation and sentencing defendant to a middle term sentence?

Nor do we find that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant probation and sentencing him to the middle term. In making its sentencing decision, the trial court may consider all circumstances in aggravation and mitigation. (Pen. Code, 1170, subd. (b).) In addition to the statutory aggravating and mitigating factors, the court may consider any criteria reasonably related to the defendant and the crime committed. (People v. Brown (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1044-1045.)

In passing, we note that defendant makes much of the trial court's observation that defendant did not admit guilt at an early stage and, instead, went to trial, arguing that the court's comments can only be construed as the court's intention to punish defendant for exercising his right to a jury trial. We read the matter differently. The court was merely noting that one of the factors in mitigation of sentence that the probation report apparently relied on in making its recommendation of probation was not supported by the record. It is the defendant's burden to establish that the trial court imposed a harsher sentence as a punishment for his election to go to trial. (People v. Szeto, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 35.) Defendant has not met his burden here.