Filed 4/21/17 P. v. Hooker CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAJUAN MALIK HOOKER,

Defendant and Appellant.


C082098

(Super. Ct. No. 15F07133)




Defendant Dajuan Malik Hooker pleaded no contest to first degree burglary and the trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison. Defendant now contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Defendant and other men jumped over a fence and into the backyard of a residence in November 2015. One of the burglars broke a sliding glass door with a shovel. The burglars took two iPhones, an iPad and $1,000 from the residence.
Defendant pleaded no contest to first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459) He admitted the burglary was in concert (§ 462, subd. (a)) and that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).
The probation report said that based on testing and an interview, defendant was assessed as a high risk to reoffend. A juvenile court had previously sustained a juvenile petition for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) in February 2014, and defendant was found to have violated probation on October 19, 2015. Defendant had two incidents in jail: possession of a contraband water bag while in another inmate’s cell, and failing to rise for count.
The probation report recognized that defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation and found three aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime involved acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)), (2) there was evidence of planning, sophistication, or professionalism (rule 4.421(a)(8)), and (3) defendant had engaged in violent conduct indicating he was a serious danger to society (rule 4.421(b)(1)). But the report noted defendant was 20 years old and had no adult criminal record. (Rule 4.413(c)(2)(C).) The probation report recommended probation based on defendant’s youth and lack of an adult criminal record.
At sentencing, the trial court said it received a letter from defendant but the handwriting was too faint to read. The prosecutor argued for a four-year state prison term based on the nature of the current crime and the juvenile adjudication. The trial court said it could not ignore defendant’s prior adjudication history and his behavior in jail.
Defendant told the trial court he apologized and took full responsibility for his actions. He said he did a lot of good in the community, helping his aunt at the clean and sober home, helping his uncle run a crossover basketball league, and helping to take care of his grandmother who was living “in her last days.”
But the trial court expressed concern that defendant had a juvenile record and did not learn from the juvenile experience. The court also considered defendant’s misconduct in jail. The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to four years in prison.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation. We disagree.
Because defendant was convicted of burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, he was ineligible for probation “[e]xcept in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served if the person is granted probation.” (§ 462, subd. (a).) We review the trial court’s determination that presumptive ineligibility is overcome, and its decision to grant or deny probation, for abuse of discretion. (People v. Superior Court (Du) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 822, 831.) To establish abuse of discretion, defendant must show that the denial of probation was arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the bounds of reason. (Ibid.)
Rule 4.413(c) identifies circumstances in which probation may be granted if otherwise appropriate. Among other things, the trial court may consider probation where “[t]he defendant is youthful or aged, and has no significant record of prior criminal offenses.” (Rule 4.413(c)(2)(C).) But the circumstances listed in rule 4.413 do not bind the trial court, which retains its discretion to consider all the circumstances. (People v. Stuart (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 165, 178.) “ ‘A trial court may minimize or even entirely disregard mitigating factors without stating its reasons.’ [Citation.] Further, unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise, the trial court will be deemed to have considered the relevant criteria, such as mitigating circumstances, enumerated in the sentencing rules. [Citation.]” (People v. Zamora (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1627, 1637.) “We will not interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion ‘when it has considered all facts bearing on the offense and the defendant to be sentenced.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 910.)
Defendant had a record of felony offending and had violated his juvenile probation a little more than a month before committing the instant offense. He also sustained infractions in jail. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the circumstances did not overcome the statutory presumption against probation.
We deny defendant’s request to take judicial notice of the sentencing minute orders for the codefendants in this case. A codefendant’s sentence is not relevant to determining whether a defendant’s sentence is an abuse of discretion. (People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 27 [sentence received by accomplice is not relevant to reviewing appellant’s sentence].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/S/
MAURO, J.



We concur:



/S/
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.



/S/
HOCH, J.