Is a court presumed to have followed the applicable law when exercising its discretion to reinstate a defendant on probation?

trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law"' when exercising its discretion [citation].'" (Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 383; see also Evid. Code, 664 ["It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed."].) Bolian is inapt. There, the trial court specifically stated that the probation officer's recommendation to reinstate the defendant on probation was "'illegal and improper.'" (Bolian, at pp. 1421-1422.) Here, the trial court never indicated a belief that reinstatement was not an option; it simply expressed dismay that its hands were tied when it came to the sentence to be imposed.