What are the mitigating factors used by the court to determine a split sentence for a defendant who has committed a series of crimes against the public while on probation?

We disagree there was an abuse of discretion. The court was well aware of the facts that defendant recounts, but the court did not consider these facts mitigating here. (See People v. Zamora (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1627, 1637 [a trial court may disregard mitigating factors without stating its reasons].) Instead, the court was within its discretion to rely on defendant's repeated failures on probation, including his current status on probation when the current crimes were committed, in determining that a split sentence would be inappropriate. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.415(b) [criteria for denying mandatory supervision "must be based on factors that are specific to a particular case or defendant" and "may" include "defendant's present status on probation"].) We explain below.