People v. Burg

Opinion

PARAS, J.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant entered a plea of guilty to violating Health and Safety Code section 11351 (possession for sale of cocaine).

1

His appeal attacks the sentence imposed; he asserts the court erred in sentencing him to the upper four-year term.

Specifically, defendant claims the court failed to give proper consideration to factors cited in mitigation. The record belies the claim. While

[306]

a trial court is not required to indicate its reasons for rejecting a mitigating factor

(People

v.

Davis

(1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 270, 281 [163 Cal.Rptr. 22]), the sentencing court here indicated that though some mitigating circumstances may have been demonstrated, they were clearly outweighed by the fact that defendant was on parole when he committed the present offense. .

Moreover, in stating its reasons for denying probation (factors which may also be properly considered as circumstances in aggravation) (see

People

v.

West

(1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 987, 995 [165 Cal.Rptr. 24];

People

v.

Butler

(1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 251, 254-255 [165 Cal.Rptr. 709];

People

v.

Ramos

(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 591, 600 [165 Cal.Rptr. 179];

People