Filed 8/20/24 P. v. Bounlord CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098924 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR900008) v. LO BOUNLORD, Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant Lo Bounlord guilty of numerous offenses, the trial court sentenced defendant to upper terms for three of those offenses. On appeal, defendant essentially argues the court abused its discretion in imposing the upper terms based solely on his prior convictions. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND In 2022, defendant barricaded himself in his residence and shot at six police officers multiple times over the course of several hours. A jury found him guilty of six counts of assault with a firearm upon a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (d)(1)),1 one count of second degree burglary (§ 459), and one count of grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)). The jury found true as to each of the assaults that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The jury was unable to reach verdicts on six counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and those charges were ultimately dismissed. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. (§ 29800 (a)(1).)

In his sentencing brief, defendant claimed the trial court could not impose the upper term, in part because no aggravating factors had been alleged in the charging document. Though defendant acknowledged he had prior convictions, he contended they were “of a de minimis nature” and thus insufficient to justify the upper term. In mitigation, defendant raised his mental illness and chronic drug use, arguing “[n]o person in his right mind would have committed the crimes alleged.”

The People submitted a certified rap sheet delineating defendant’s prior convictions, which included two misdemeanor convictions from 2004, a 2007 felony conviction for cultivating marijuana, a 2007 felony conviction for possessing an assault weapon, a 2014 misdemeanor conviction for making criminal threats, and a 2014 misdemeanor conviction for assault with a deadly weapon.

At sentencing, the trial court stated that it had “read and considered all the reports” and “all the briefs,” including the “certified rap sheet with the defendant’s priors.” As relevant here, the court ultimately found that the “aggravating factors outweigh those in mitigation, being the defendant’s prior convictions and the totality of the circumstances”

and imposed the upper term of eight years in prison on three of the assault convictions.

Defendant’s aggregate sentence was 54 years in prison.

Defendant timely appealed.

DISCUSSION Defendant’s argument on appeal is somewhat unclear. In the heading of his brief, he argues his upper term sentences “must be reversed as there were no aggravating factors alleged or properly found by the court under . . . section 1170, subdivision (b)(3).”

Section 1170, subdivision (b)(3) concerns what type of records are required to prove a defendant’s prior convictions for sentencing purposes. But defendant never argues that his prior convictions were improperly based on the certified rap sheet submitted by the People. Nor does he maintain that “no aggravating factors” were properly found, as he admits that “the only aggravating factor the court could . . . consider was the fact of appellant’s prior convictions, based on the certified record.” Rather, defendant contends in the body of his brief that the court erred in imposing the upper term because there were factors in mitigation and his prior convictions were “de minimis” in nature. Thus, in essence, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, justifying the upper term.2 The People argue defendant forfeited his claim. To the extent defendant now argues his prior convictions were improperly proven, such a claim is forfeited as defendant never objected on this basis below. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356; People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 992.) But defendant’s broader argument--that the

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ Duarte, J.

We concur:

/s/ Earl, P. J.

/s/ Wiseman, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.