People v. Mendoza CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Since Mendoza does not challenge either the admissibility or the sufficiency of the

evidence to support the jury's decisions, we will only provide a brief summary of the

facts in order to give context to the discussion which follows.

On January 29, 2013, police served a search warrant on Mendoza's residence,

where he lived with his wife and children. The property was adjacent to an elementary

school and across the street from a private preschool. The search produced four bags of

meth in the backyard, less than 200 feet from the elementary school. The meth was

found to be very pure and high quality. A total of 1,783 grams of meth were discovered

in the search.

DISCUSSION

This appeal focuses only on the trial court's decision to select the upper term of

three years instead of the middle term of two years as recommended by the probation

officer. Mendoza argues that decision was erroneous because the trial court based its

decision, at least in part, on facts which were the basis for the enhancements. Hence,

Mendoza contends the court's decision to select the upper term was unjustified.

Mendoza does not dispute that the failure to…