Defendant appealed a judgment

Defendant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, California, which convicted him, following a jury trial, of six counts of robbery under Pen. Code, §§ 211-212.5. The jury also found that he suffered prior strike convictions under Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subds. (b), (c), two prior serious felony convictions under Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a), and served two prior state prison terms under Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).

Defendant was sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law to an aggregate state prison term of 210 years to life. The court held that the robbery statute, § 211, was not unconstitutionally vague. Defendant was not charged in the information with robbery of banks, but rather with robbery of persons who happened to be bank employees. Visit the employment law firm Los Angeles when you face any issue in Employment law cases.

The statute’s language was sufficiently clear and settled to provide notice of the proscribed conduct and enable those charged with its violation to properly prepare a defense. No prejudicial errors were committed in the resolution of defendant’s motions related to his right to counsel. Although the trial court erred by failing to inform defendant of his right to appointed counsel and to expressly obtain a waiver of that right when he was arraigned on the felony information, as Pen. Code, § 987, required, any error was harmless, and his waiver of the right to counsel was both knowing and voluntary. No instructional error occurred. Despite a victim’s failure to positively identify defendant at trial or in a pretrial photo lineup, the robbery convictions were all supported by the evidence. Finally, the sentence did not violate any constitutional principles.

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Defendant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which entered a conviction against him for robbery and first degree murder and sentenced him to death.

Defendant and codefendants were charged with robbery and first degree murder. A felony-murder-robbery special circumstance was also alleged. Pursuant to a plea agreement, one codefendant became a witness for the prosecution. The theory of the prosecution’s case was that defendant personally killed the victim in the course of a robbery. The primary defense was alibi and the secondary defense was intoxication or diminished capacity. Defendant did not testify. The jury found defendant guilty of robbery and first degree murder. Also, the felony-murder-robbery special circumstance was found true and defendant was sentenced to death. On appeal, the court rejected the trial court’s determination that the officers’ search of defendant’s and codefendants’ motel room was justified by exigent circumstances. However, the court thought that the trial court correctly overruled defendant’s motion to suppress because defendant failed to make a prima facie case that the evidence sought to be suppressed was tainted by the unlawful police entry into the motel room. The court found no prejudicial error in defendant’s remaining challenges on appeal an affirmed his convictions and sentence.

 The court affirmed defendant’s robbery and first degree murder convictions and his death sentence. The court concluded that the trial court correctly overruled defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and found no error that required reversal in any of defendant’s other challenges.