What is the test for a decision not to dismiss an enhancement for abuse of the Three Strikes?

As the parties agree, we review a trial court's decision not to dismiss an enhancement for abuse of discretion. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371.) Under this standard, the defendant bears the burden of showing that the trial court's sentencing decision was irrational and arbitrary. (Id. at p. 376.) We are not free to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court (id. at p. 377) or to assign a different weight to the various factors informing a discretionary decision (People v. Willover (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 302, 323). "Where, as here, a discretionary power is inherently or by express statute vested in the trial judge, his or her exercise of that wide discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently

Page 7

absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice." (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316.)

In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we are guided by case law interpreting the Three Strikes law. We consider whether the trial court evaluated the nature and circumstances of the defendant's felonies (present and prior) and the particulars of his background and character. (See, e.g., People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.)

3. Analysis