P. v. Solomon CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Apr 24, 2013 No. B239354Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his claim of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to object at trial and failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel's silence was a reasonable tactical decision.

Issues

Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking questions about alleged admissions without calling the witness to testify.
Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's cross-examination and failure to call the witness.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant objected neither to the prosecutor’s cross-examination nor to her failure to call the deputy sheriff as a witness.”

“The record discloses a rational tactical basis for defense counsel’s conduct.”

“It is not reasonably likely that appellant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had defense counsel raised successful objections to the prosecutor’s conduct.”

Filed 4/24/13 P. v. Solomon CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B239354 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. GA083955)

LANDON ANTHONY SOLOMON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Janice Claire Croft, Judge. Affirmed.

Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Esther P. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Landon Anthony Solomon challenges his conviction for petty theft with three prior theft-related convictions (Pen. Code, § 666), contending that there was prosecutorial misconduct and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.1 We conclude that appellant has failed to show reversible error, and thus affirm.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 3, 2011, an information was filed, charging appellant with petty theft with three prior convictions. In addition, the information alleged that appellant had served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and had two convictions, for purposes of the “Three Strikes” Law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170. 12, subds. (a)-(d)). Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations. Prior to trial, appellant admitted that he had three prior convictions, for purposes of the offense charged against him. On November 22, 2011, a jury found appellant guilty as charged. In waiving a bench trial on the special allegations, appellant admitted that he had served five prior prison terms (§ 667, subd. (b)) and had one “strike” conviction. The trial court sentenced him to a total prison term of 5 years. FACTS A. Prosecution Evidence On August 6, 2011, Stephanie Villa was employed as an asset protection associate in a Walmart store in Rosemead. She watched five closed circuit television monitors displaying different areas of the store, including the cash registers. Villa was able to move some of the television cameras to adjust her view. Video recordings of the pertinent events that she witnessed were played for

P. v. Solomon CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

LANDON ANTHONY SOLOMON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MANELLA, J.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.

AI Brief