les 421 and 423 which list the circumstances in aggravation and mitigation of sentence, respectively.
The text of the statement is as follows:
After reviewing the police report, transcript of the preliminary examination, talking to the probation officer, consulting psychiatrist Dr. Sigmund Fried, who has examined defendant since his conviction and discussing the case with Mrs. Cynthia T., defendant's ex-wife and his drinking companion, Joe Jones, on the day of the crime (see the enclosed Statements of Dr. Fried, Mrs. T. and Jones), defendant's counsel submits the following statement concerning facts weighing in favor of probation and circumstances in mitigation of sentence.
The Probation Officer on p. 9 of his Report acknowledged as a fact weighing in favor of probation that defendant claimed that he was suffering from a physical drug addiction and forged the checks in order to buy drugs (Rules 411.5(a)(6) and 413(c)(2)(ii)): and (2), as a circumstance in mitigation of sentence that defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrong-doing at an early stage of the criminal process (Rule 423(b)(3)). Nevertheless, the probation report recommended against probation and in favor of confinement to an upper term of three years. The prosecutor in its pre-plea bargain mentioned on p. 1 of the
Probation Officer's Report recommended that the charge be reduced to a misdemeanor when and if the Defendant made restitution of the $285. Now, apparently because defendant did not appear at his first sentencing hearing on March 15, 1986, the prosecution requests that the defendant be sentenced to two years in prison for commission of the sec. 470 felony. Since defendant's failure to appear was due to his substance abuse problems, which can be treated during probation, as discussed below, and since defendant has now made restitution, the prosecutor should be held to his original bargain.
For the following reasons, defendant submits that he shoul...