Is a defendant entitled to a reduced sentence if his trial attorney failed to object to the sentence?

In the alternative, defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to object. To prevail on this claim, defendant must demonstrate that his counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable and that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216.) Defendant's claim fails because, even if defense counsel had objected, the result of the proceeding would not have been different. (See post, D.)

D. The Court Properly Sentenced Defendant

"Under the [determinate sentencing law], a trial court is free to base an upper term sentence upon any aggravating circumstance that the court deems significant, subject to specific prohibitions. [Citations.] The [trial] court's discretion to identify aggravating circumstances is otherwise limited only by the requirement that they be 'reasonably related to the decision being made.' [Citation.]" (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 848, fn. omitted.) "In making such sentencing choices, the trial court need only 'state [its] reasons' [citation]; it is not required to identify aggravating and mitigating factors, apply a preponderance of the evidence standard, or specify the 'ultimate facts' that 'justify the term selected.' [Citations.] Rather, the court must 'state in simple

Page 10

language the primary factor or factors that support the exercise of discretion.' " (Id. at pp. 850-851.)