People v. Mercadel CA4/3, G048881

Defendant Jimmie Lee Mercadel was arrested at an Irvine Wal‑Mart after store loss‑prevention observed him on surveillance gathering multiple high‑end items, placing some in a Target bag, and abandoning a cart containing 64 items worth $2,300.
Charged and convicted of second‑degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code §§ 459, 460(b)).
At sentencing the court denied probation and imposed the upper term of three years, split between custody and mandatory supervision (§ 1170(h)).
The court relied on Mercadel’s extensive juvenile and adult record, repeated probation violations, commission of the burglary while on probation, planning/sophistication of the offense, and lack of mitigating factors.
Mercadel did not object at sentencing to the jail term or to the mandatory supervision conditions; he later appealed the sentence and challenged one supervision condition (residence subject to probation officer approval) as overbroad and facially unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Mercadel)	Held
Whether the upper (three‑year) term was irrational/arbitrary and whether probation should have been granted	Court reasonably exercised discretion; aggravating factors supported upper term and denial of probation	Upper term was arbitrary; defendant should have received probation or a lower term	Affirmed. Waiver for failure to object; even on merits aggravating factors justified upper term and denial of probation
Whether mandatory supervision condition requiring residence approval by probation officer is constitutional	Condition is part of supervision and permissible	Condition is overbroad, infringes right to travel and freedom of association, facially unconstitutional	Reversed as to residence restriction. Condition is not narrowly tailored and must be redrawn

Lent v. People, 15 Cal.3d 481 (establishes abuse‑of‑discretion standard for probation/sentencing)
People v. Steele, 83 Cal.App.4th 212 (one aggravating factor justifies upper term)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (waiver doctrine for discretionary sentencing claims)
In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (facial challenges to probation conditions preserved only for vagueness/overbreadth)
In re Byron B., 119 Cal.App.4th 1013 (constitutional limits on probation conditions that restrict rights)
In re Babak S., 18 Cal.App.4th 1077 (probation conditions valid only if narrowly tailored)
People v. Bauer, 211 Cal.App.3d 937 (residence‑approval probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad)
People v. O’Neil, 165 Cal.App.4th 1351 (associational restrictions lacking limiting standards are overbroad)