Morado

The primary issue raised on this appeal is whether a sentencing court, having found facts justifying probation when probation is statutorily disfavored, must later, when imposing sentence after probation has been terminated for a violation, choose the mitigated term based on the same facts previously used for the grant of probation. We hold that in *892 deciding to grant probation the trial court was not required to, and did not, weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and was not thereafter precluded from selecting the midterm sentence option upon consideration of all relevant sentencing factors.

I. *

Statement of Facts and Procedural History

II.

DISCUSSION

A. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the middle term of imprisonment.

Appellant was originally granted probation for his first degree burglary, despite the statutory directive that probation not be awarded for first degree burglary “[ejxcept in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served if the person is granted probation . . . . ” (Pen. Code, 1 § 462, subd. (a).) The sentencing court in 1987 recorded its decision as follows: “All right. As stated previously,…