People v. Clerisse CA4/3

FACTS

At some point, defendant had issues with his vehicle and could not pay the mechanic for the repairs. The victim, a general contractor who had a business relationship with defendant, purchased the vehicle from the mechanic and loaned it back to defendant. Defendant ultimately did not repay the victim, and they stopped working together. Defendant subsequently made several threatening phone calls and left threatening voicemails for the victim. Relevant sentencing and procedural facts are summarized below.

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s counsel suggests we consider the following issues: (1) whether “the trial court properly imposed an upper term sentence when the prosecutor neither alleged aggravating factors in the charging document nor provided notice of its intent to seek the upper term”; (2) whether “the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an upper term sentence when factors in mitigation outweighed those in aggravation”; (3) whether “the trial court properly imposed an upper term sentence without an admission or jury finding the aggravating factors true beyond a reasonable doubt”; (4) whether “the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by vouching for [the victim] during…