In reviewing a decision by the Superior Court of Appeal to deny probation to a minor, can a judge substitute his or her judgment for that of another court?

That another court may have reached a different conclusion does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. In reviewing a trial court's denial of probation, "'it is not our function to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Our function is to determine whether the trial court's order granting [or denying] probation is arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason considering all the facts and circumstances.' [Citation.]" (People v. Weaver (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1311.) We cannot conclude the court's denial of probation was "'arbitrary or capricious'" or that it exceeded "'the bounds of reason.'" (Id. at p. 1311.)

Page 16