What is the case law on abuse of discretion when sentencing a convicted sex offender to probation rather than prison term?

Reel contends that the trial court erred by not sentencing him, a first time offender, to probation. He argues that a prison term "would have a devastating effect on [him]," he was remorseful, he scored a zero on the Static-99R test of risk for sex offender recidivism, and any public safety concern would be addressed by his required participation in a sex offender treatment program. We review the court's sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.)

"The trial court's sentencing discretion must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary and capricious, that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, and that is based upon an 'individualized consideration of the offense, the offender, and the public interest.' [Citation.]" (People v. Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 847.) A trial court will abuse its discretion "if it relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision. [Citations.] A failure to exercise discretion also may constitute an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]" (Id., at pp. 847-848.)