People v. Duran

California Court of Appeal Jul 22, 1969 No. Crim. 3570Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court is not required to instruct the jury sua sponte not to draw an inference of guilt from a defendant's failure to testify, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice from post-judgment administrative delays.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte not to draw an inference of guilt from the defendant's failure to testify.
Whether the trial court's delay in filing its views under Penal Code section 1203.01 affected the validity of the conviction.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

Disposition. Judgment affirmed; appeal from order dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court did not err in failing to instruct the jury it must draw no inference of guilt from Duran's failure to testify at the trial where Duran did not request such an instruction”

“Duran’s complaint the court delayed some three months after sentencing before filing its views as required by Penal Code, section 1203.01 relates to a matter which happened after judgment and does not affect the fairness of his trial”

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Ramon Jesus Duran, convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), after jury trial, appeals, claiming: The court should have instructed the jury on its own motion not to draw any inference of guilt from his failure to testify; the court unreasonably delayed filing a statement of its views under Penal Code, section 1203.01; and his counsel was ineffective at time of sentencing. Duran’s appeal from a nonappealable order denying his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) must be dismissed. (Pen. Code, § 1237.)

Duran offered to help Kathryn Joyce carry her groceries as she walked toward her home from a market in Anaheim the evening of March 15, 1968. She handed him her bag of groceries, walked a short distance, then rebuffed him when he put his arm around her shoulders. Duran grabbed her purse and ran away. Miss Joyce told the police what happened and described the purse snatcher to them.

[37]

Less than 15 minutes later the police stopped Duran in the vicinity of the crime and by radio summoned Miss Joyce (who was with another officer) to see if she could identify Duran as the robber. Duran attempted to escape on foot after hearing the radio message but was chased down. Miss Joyce said Duran was the purse snatcher.

The court did not err in failing to instruct the jury it must draw no inference of guilt from Duran's failure to testify at the trial where Duran did not request such an instruction

(People

Horrigan,

253 Cal.App.2d 519, 521-523 [61 Cal.Rptr. 403]). There is some confusion created by conflicting California appellate decisions regarding giving or failing to give an instruction such as Duran now wants (see

People

Hernandez,

264 Cal.App.2d 206 [70 Cal.Rptr. 330]), but no case has held it error for the trial court not to give the instruction where it has not been requested.

Duran’s complaint the court delayed some three months after sentencing before filing its views as required by Penal Code, section 1203.01 relates to a matter which happened after judgment and does not affect the fairness of his trial or validity of his conviction. Moreover, Duran’s claim he was prejudiced by the delay rests on sheer speculation the court would have been more favorably disposed toward him in October than in January. We cannot join in this speculation, particularly where Duran has failed to include a copy of the court’s views in the record.

People v. Duran

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief