How have courts reviewed sentencing choices such as the one at issue, whether to reinstate probation or sentence a defendant to prison?

"Sentencing choices such as the one at issue here, whether to reinstate probation or sentence a defendant to prison, are reviewed for abuse of discretion. `A denial or a grant of probation generally rests within the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.' [Citation.] A court abuses its discretion `whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.' [Citation.] 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, 909-910.)

The trial court in this case fully considered appellant's history, the arguments of counsel, and the information contained in the probation reports and defense sentencing memorandum. It gave a reasoned explanation for its sentencing decision, which was amply supported by the record. Although the probation department recommended the reinstatement of probation, the court was not bound to follow that recommendation. (People v. Downey, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 910.) Given appellant's violent conduct, we cannot say the court abused its discretion when it required him to serve a prison sentence rather than reinstating his probation.