What is the consequence of the finding that possession for sale of Class A drugs was more serious than the ordinary crime under the possession of a prohibited substance?

Even if one doubts the propriety of the trial court's reference to the quantity of the substance and to the close proximity to schools, clearly there are good and valid reasons for the trial court's unremarkable conclusion that Mendoza's possession for sale was more serious than the ordinary crime under that statute. We are convinced there is no likelihood that an objection by trial counsel would have made any difference in the outcome of this sentencing.² Accordingly, Mendoza has failed to demonstrate prejudice as required by Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668. Mendoza was not denied effective assistance of counsel.

Page 8

The judgment is affirmed.