Pierce claim in California

2022Attorney Misconduct Claim Finally, we independently review Pierce’s claim of attorney misconduct (Lafrenz v. Stoddard (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 1, 9 ), which is comprised of three categories of defense counsel’s trial conduct: (1) mentions of Pierce’s insurance during witness examinations; (2) closing argument assertions that Alexander committed perjury; and (3) closing argument comments on the lack of witness testimony from Helm and someone from Hoag Urgent Care.

2019(People v. Morocco (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1449, 1453 .) There was no error on the part of the trial court in rejecting Pierce’s motion to compel an election between conspiracies.

2019(People v. Hajek and Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1183 .) Here the evidence of 34. corroboration of Yang’s testimony is sufficient to find that the trial court did not err in its denial of Pierce’s motion for reconsideration of acquittal on count 1.

2019(People v. Hajek and Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1183 .) We find no error on the part of the trial court in denying Pierce’s motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the case.

2019(See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez (11th Cir. 2014) 751 F.3d 1244, 1261 .) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. ________________________ FRANSON, Acting P.J.

2016Instead, both courts merely concluded that the initial determination of whether a prior conviction qualified for relief under section 1170.126 was to be made by the court, based on the “record of conviction” – i.e., the same underlying evidentiary record which the Supreme Court concluded in People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343 (Guerrero), could be used to determine whether a defendant’s prior conviction would qualify as a “strike” under the “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, 1170.12.) Moreover, Guerrero itself does not support Pierce’s claim.

2016While he acknowledges Guerrero does not specifically address the burden of proof issue, Pierce relies on it for the proposition that in cases where the underlying record of conviction does not establish the severity of a prior offense, the court must presume the conviction “was for the least offense punishable.” ( Guerrero, supra, 44 Cal.3d. at p. 352.) However, Guerrero addresses that issue in the context of examining whether a defendant’s prior conviction would qualify as a “strike,” which would justify imposing a lengthier sentence for a current crime.

2015At the hearing on Pierce’s new trial motion, the court observed “I think we reached the point where I’m almost convinced that you’re trying to game the system.” 5 disadvantages of self-representation, including the risks and complexities of the particular case.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 708 (Blair), overruled on another point in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912 .) “The failure to give a particular set of advisements does not, of itself, show that a Faretta waiver was inadequate.

2006As an alternate ground for concluding Pierce’s prior sexual offense was properly admitted under section 1108, Division Six held, “Pierce also comes within section 1108, subdivision (d) because his offense involves ‘[a]n attempt... to engage in conduct described in this paragraph.’ [Citation.] The instant offense was committed to derive ‘sexual pleasure or gratification from the infliction of death, bodily injury or physical pain on another person.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Pierce, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 898 .) The court thus held evidence a crime had been committed to derive sexual pleasu