What is the test for overturning a probation sentence based on a single factor in aggravation?

"The trial judge's discretion in determining whether to grant probation is broad. [Citation.] '[A] "'decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people might disagree. "An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge."'"' [Citation.] '[T]hese precepts establish that a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.' [Citation.] Generally, '"'[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.'"' [Citation.]" (People v. Stuart, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at pp. 178-179.) "'California courts have long held that a single factor in aggravation is sufficient to justify a sentencing choice . . . .' [Citation.]" (People v. Quintanilla (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 406, 413.)