People v. Thompson

Opinion

DeCRISTOFORO, J.

In case No. 6539, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)),

1

and in case No. 6553, he pleaded guilty to one count of attempted lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 (§§ 664 and 288, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to the midterm of six years on the section 288, subdivision (a) charge, and a concurrent middle term of three years on the attempted section 288, subdivision (a) charge.

On appeal, defendant contends he was denied equal protection of the law when the trial court refused his request for ancillary defense services of an expert witness.

Discussion

Essentially, defendant argues he was entitled to a report of a reputable psychiatrist or psychologist pursuant to section 288.1, and the court’s refusal to order such a report prior to deciding whether or not to grant defendant

[1549]

probation denied him equal protection of the law. Defendant’s argument raises two issues. First, was defendant statutorily entitled to a psychiatric or psychological report pursuant to section 288.1? Second, was defendant, an indigent, denied the right to reasonably necessary ancillary defense services?

(Ake

v.

Oklahoma

(1985) 470 U.S. 68, 76-77 [84 L.Ed.2d 53, 61-62, 105 S.Ct. 1087];

Corenevsky

v.

Superior Court

(1984) 36 Cal.3d 307, 319-320 [204 Cal.Rptr. 165, 682 P.2d 360];

People

v.

Young

(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 891, 902 [234 Cal.Rptr. 819].)