The People v. Wisneski CA3

DISCUSSION

I Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing the quantity enhancement because it was either uninformed as to the scope of its discretion under section 11370.4 to strike the enhancement or abused its discretion in failing to consider the circumstances in mitigation which warranted striking the enhancement. We disagree. Background Prior to sentencing, defendant submitted several reference letters attesting to his good character. At sentencing, the court indicated it had reviewed the probation report as well as defendant’s character letters. The prosecutor estimated that the cocaine’s street value was $3.5 million. The prosecutor asserted that the quantity, packaging, and use of a rental car reflected criminal sophistication and that all levels of participation in a large- scale operation are required for the operation to succeed. Defense counsel conceded that defendant knew Ciarelli was transporting drugs but claimed defendant did not know the exact quantity. Defense counsel requested that defendant’s split sentence be more favorable to defendant than to Ciarelli. Defense counsel claimed that any sophistication was by persons other than defendant and Ciarelli.…