Filed 6/30/26 P. v. Ali 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Sutter)
THE PEOPLE, C103312
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. CRF223054)
v.
SERINA CIARA ALI,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Serina Ciara Ali appeals the trial court’s denial of her request for
probation and imposition of an aggregate prison sentence of four years four months. Ali
argues that given the unique circumstances of the case, the trial court abused its
discretion in denying her request for probation. We conclude Ali’s failure to object in the
trial court has forfeited her argument, nor has she established an exception to that
forfeiture. Finally, even if we considered the merits, Ali has not established an abuse of
discretion. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In October 2022, Ali consumed an unspecified number of alcoholic drinks at her
brother’s home. She was still under the influence of those drinks when Ali attempted to
drive home with her mother in the early morning hours. She was generally unfamiliar
with the area but was aware there was a stop sign coming up. Ali decided to run the stop
sign and did not see the other car’s headlights until it was too late. She hit the other car,
1
killing the driver, Toni Tilisha Keshun Morgan. Ali had been going 57 miles per hour
but slowed to approximately 40 miles per hour before the crash. Ali’s mother sustained
broken ribs and lost consciousness in the accident. Ali’s blood alcohol content two hours
after the accident was .12 percent.
The People’s September 2023 information charged Ali with gross vehicular
manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a); count 1); driving under the
influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 2); and driving with a
blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd.
(b); count 3). For counts 2 and 3, the information also alleged that Ali had inflicted great
bodily injury as defined by section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
In December 2024, Ali resolved the case by pleading guilty to counts 1 and 2, as
well as admitting the enhancement allegation as to count 2. In exchange, the trial court
dismissed count 3 and its associated enhancement on the People’s motion. Ali’s
maximum sentencing exposure was 11 years and eight months.
Ali submitted a presentence brief asserting a grant of probation would be in the
interests of justice considering her lack of a prior record, remorse, youth, abstention from
alcohol, willingness to comply with the conditions of probation, and the negative impact
her imprisonment would have on her son. Alternatively, Ali requested the trial court
impose a low term sentence on count 1 and run the sentence for count two concurrent.
The probation department recommended against probation. The department
identified various factors supporting probation: Ali had no prior criminal record, was
remorseful, had expressed a willingness to comply with the terms of probation, and
incarceration was likely to have adverse collateral consequences, including on her son.
Factors weighing against probation included the seriousness of the circumstances of the
offense and Ali’s infliction of serious injury. Weighing all competing considerations, the
probation department recommended a low term prison sentence of four years four
months.
2
At the February 2025 sentencing, the trial court considered the factors concerning
a grant of probation — including six factors weighing in favor of such a grant.
Nonetheless, the court determined the factors weighing against a grant of probation —
including Ali’s excessive speed, high blood alcohol content, awareness of a stop sign in
the area, and infliction of injury on multiple people — justified denying her request. As
to the selection of terms, the court sentenced Ali to four years and four months in prison
(the low term of 16 months on count 1, plus three years for the enhancement, and a
concurrent term for count 2).
Ali timely appeals.
DISCUSSION
Ali argues the unique circumstances of the case — including her acceptance of
responsibility, remorse, and lack of a criminal record — justify a grant of probation and
that the trial court abused its discretion in denying that request. She contends she might
have received a different sentence had the victim come from a smaller family with a less
persuasive story of loss.
We agree with the People that Ali has forfeited her arguments regarding the trial
court’s exercise of its discretion by failing to timely object following the trial court’s
decision. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-356.) As explained in Scott, “the
right to challenge a criminal sentence on appeal is not unrestricted. In order to encourage
prompt detection and correction of error, and to reduce the number of unnecessary
appellate claims, reviewing courts have required parties to raise certain issues at the time
of sentencing. In such cases, lack of a timely and meaningful objection forfeits or waives
the claim.” (Id. p. 351, italics omitted.) The rationale behind this rule is simple,
“Although the court is required to impose sentence in a lawful manner, counsel is
charged with understanding, advocating, and clarifying permissible sentencing choices at
the hearing.” (Id. at p. 353.) Included in these waivable issues are “complaints about the
manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion.” (Id. at p. 356.)
3
Here, the trial court gave a lengthy explanation of its weighing of the various
factors concerning Ali’s request for probation, ultimately denying her request. Following
that explanation, Ali failed to object or otherwise identify any concerns with the trial
court’s reasoning. There is nothing in the record to suggest an objection would have been
futile, counterproductive, or that Ali was otherwise prevented from having a meaningful
opportunity to object. (Scott, p. 356; People v. Zuniga (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 81, 84.) In
fact, while the parties agreed that Ali should receive a low term sentence for count 1, the
hearing continued for some time about whether Ali should receive a consecutive or a
concurrent sentence for count 2. Accordingly, Ali’s claim concerning the trial court’s
discretion in denying her probation request is forfeited. (Scott, p. 351.)
Moreover, the merits of Ali’s arguments fail to establish an 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] ‘ “[O]nly in a very extreme case should an appellate court
interfere with the discretion of the trial court in the matter of denying or revoking
probation....” ’ (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443.)” (People v. Kingston
(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 272, 278.)
Here, Ali disagrees with the trial court’s evaluation of her suitability for probation,
highlighting her lack of a criminal record, remorse, and acceptance of responsibility for
the offenses. She also takes issue with the persuasiveness of the victim’s family’s
statements concerning their loss as a result of the victim’s death. However, Ali has not
shown the court’s suitability determination exceeded the bounds of reason. (People v.
Kingston, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 278.) So her claim fails on the merits, too.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, ACTING 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.
5