How has the court treated defense counsel's Herculean efforts to secure a conviction for the most serious crime?

which sets forth circumstances in aggravation. The court described its personal observations and articulated its findings of aggravating circumstances. The court "did not say anything reasonably giving rise to the inference that he was penalizing defendant for exercising his right to jury trial. The mere fact... that following trial defendant received a more severe sentence than he was offered during plea negotiations does not in itself support the inference that he was penalized for exercising his constitutional rights." (People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 35.) Although the court's comments about defense counsel's Herculean efforts might be interpreted as suggesting that defendant deserved to be convicted of more serious crimes, they do not support an inference the court sought to punish defendant for exercising his right to a jury trial. In sum, defendant has failed to establish the court imposed a harsher sentence because he chose to go to trial. (Ibid.)