Does Defendant have a legitimate basis for his conviction for assault with a semi-automatic firearm and grossly negligent discharge of a firearm?

Defendant does not contend that the trial court had no legitimate basis for its decision and, plainly, it did. Among other things, the court appropriately considered that defendant's present offenses of assault with a semi-automatic firearm and grossly negligent discharge of a firearm were serious felonies, since they involved his personal use of a firearm,⁵ that his prior strikes involved serious and violent crimes, that defendant's criminal history was extensive and included his commission of violent crimes in the years between his last strike conviction and the current offense (see People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 813 [noting that "[w]here, as here, the defendant has led a continuous life of crime after the prior, there has been no 'washing out' and there is simply nothing mitigating about a 20-year-old prior"]), and that this history indicated that it was unlikely that he would not re-offend. The court had ample bases for its decision and did not abuse its discretion. Defendant's argument to the contrary is without merit.

Page 11