What factors are considered mitigating factors in a conviction for residential burglary?

We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's view that the firs three factors were not mitigating circumstances. Appellant had loving and supportive parents and employable skills, yet still committed a residential burglary. Appellant fled immediately upon seeing the housekeeper; it is reasonable to conclude that he may have done so out of a desire to avoid arrest, and not because he intended to avoid harming the housekeeper. In this light, defendant's choice not to confront the housekeeper need not be viewed as a mitigating circumstance. (See, e.g., People v. Regalado (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 531, 540-541 [lack of physical violence is not a mitigating factor where the record fails to show that burglar's departure upon the return of the victim was anything other than an attempt to escape].)

The trial court found appellant's lengthy criminal record an aggravating factor, describing him as a "committed" burglar and a danger to society. Although appellant suffered no convictions between his 2013 discharge from parole and the current offense, the court correctly noted his prior prison sentence for burglary did not deter him from committing a second burglary. The court connected appellant's prior criminal record with his drug problem. The court noted appellant had had at least one prior opportunity for drug treatment in 2002, after which in 2008 he suffered at least one conviction for possession of a controlled substance. (See People v. Reyes (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 957, 963 [where defendant has failed to deal with substance abuse problem despite opportunities to do so and he continues in criminal conduct to support his pattern of substance abuse, an aggravated or upper term is appropriate]; see also People v. Martinez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1511.)

Page 17