Is a mental health condition a mitigating factor in determining a defendant's sentence?

Moreover, the trial court reasonably could have concluded defense counsel was significantly overstating the benefit defendant could anticipate if a continuance were granted. It is true that a mitigating factor may be found if "[t]he defendant was suffering from a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crime." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(2).) A finding that a defendant's mental condition contributed to the offense does not, however, automatically result in a conclusion the defendant's culpability was "'significantly reduced'" thereby. (See People v. Regalado (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 531, 538-539.) In light of defendant's 40-year known history of criminal activity (his juvenile record apparently having been lost or destroyed), his five prior strike convictions, and the fact defendant's conduct proximately caused injury to two peace officers, the trial court did not err by questioning what defense counsel could present that could change the information already before it. (See id. at p. 539 [since individual sentencing criteria have no fixed mathematical values, court can decide mitigating influence, if any, is small].)

We recognize that sentencing is a critical stage of the prosecution. (People v. Trapps (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 265, 272.) Nevertheless, "'[b]road discretion must be

Page 12