In arguing against remand, how have the courts dealt with motions that would have reduced defendant's sentence?

In arguing against remand, the People rely on the trial court's denial of two motions that would have reduced his sentence. The court denied defendant's Romero motion (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1966) 13 Cal.4th 497) to dismiss his strike, citing his extensive criminal record, and his motion under section 17, subdivision (b) to reduce his domestic violence conviction to a misdemeanor. Further, the court imposed the upper term on count one.

This is not, however, a case where the trial court imposed the maximum possible sentence or indicated it would not exercise its discretion to lessen defendant's sentence in any way. (See People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894, 1896.) Rather, the court imposed the mid-term on the great bodily injury enhancement and ran the sentence on domestic violence conviction concurrent; "That won't be additional time." The court noted defendant had some good qualities and did not intend the injuries to his son.