P. v. Mesa
Defendant Jose Meza[1] appeals from an order revoking probation and committing him to state prison. He contends that his trial attorney was prejudicially ineffective in failing to request that the trial court state its reasons for sentencing defendant to prison rather than reinstating probation. Although we are troubled by counsels failure to draw the courts attention to its statutory duty to state reasons for its sentence choices, Court see no reasonable likelihood on this record that counsels omission had any effect on the courts decision. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Mesa