People v. Chandler

California Court of Appeal Oct 2, 1986 No. No. B014687Published

Before: Arabian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution need not prove the constitutional validity of prior convictions as a foundation for their use, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or constitutional infirmity in the sentencing enhancements.

Issues

Whether the prosecution must prove the constitutional validity of prior convictions used for sentencing enhancements.
Whether the trial court failed to obtain sufficient waivers of constitutional rights regarding prior conviction allegations.
Whether the sentencing enhancement for attempted robbery is unconstitutional.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to exclude prior convictions for impeachment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“admissibility of evidence tending to show appellant suffered a prior conviction is not contingent on a foundational showing, by the People, that the prior conviction is constitutionally valid.”

“it is clear that appellant has suffered no prejudice since, in light of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, a more favorable outcome would not have been obtained in the absence of counsel’s omission.”

Opinion

ARABIAN, J.— Introduction

Lionel Chandler appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and the finding, after a court trial, that he suffered a prior conviction of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a prior conviction of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211) within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). We affirm the judgment.

Facts

The People’s Case

Appellant properly does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which reveals that on January 5, 1985, Madree Handley observed appellant [203]trying to enter the Los Angeles home of her neighbor, Roy Wright. Madree alerted her daughter, Terrie Handley, who saw tennis shoes going through the back door window of Wright’s house. Terrie called another neighbor, Harold Lone, who responded with an unloaded shotgun. As Lone approached the back door of Wright’s house he saw clothes fly out the window and land on the porch. Lone ordered appellant to stick his head out of the window and then dragged him out of the house. Appellant tried to run but was caught by Lone who struggled with appellant until police officers arrived.

The Defense Case

Appellant testified that Lone threatened to kill him because of a fight appellant had with Lone’s daughter. Appellant claimed that on the date in question, Lone attacked him with a shotgun from behind a tree. Apparently, as a trial tactic, appellant testified on direct that he went to prison for attempted robbery and for stealing liquor from a store and that in those cases he pleaded guilty because he was guilty. On cross-examination, appellant admitted that his theft of liquor resulted in a burglary conviction.

The Priors

Before accepting appellant’s jury waiver on the issue of the prior convictions, the court stated, “It will actually only be the jury waiver, because he will still have the right to hear the evidence against him, to call witnesses, anything he wants.” After reviewing certified copies of Department of Corrections records, which included photographs and fingerprints, the court found the allegations of prior convictions to be true.

People v. Chandler

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III.

AI Brief