People v. Legler CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 16, 2013H038441California8,379 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

facts not in evidence during closing argument; and (3) the cumulative effect of these two errors mandates reversal.2 Legler separately appeals from an order denying his postsentencing motion to recalculate his presentence conduct credits (H038798). We granted Legler’s motion to have both appeals considered together for purposes of briefing, oral argument and decision. In addition, Legler has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (H039776), which we have ordered to be considered in connection with the appeals. In that petition, Legler contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert witness in psychology to testify that his “nature is not consonant with child molestation” and for failing to retain an expert on sleep disorders to explain that the alleged act of molestation could have been committed while Legler was asleep. In addition, Legler contends his due process rights were violated by this court denying his request for funds to retain a sleep disorders expert for purposes of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We disagree with all of Legler’s arguments on appeal and shall affirm both the judgment and the order denying him additional conduct…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.