Jacobo

*1420 Opinion

A jury convicted appellant of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 1 § 187) and robbery (§211). It also found true a robbery special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and two firearm use allegations (§ 12022.5). We find that: appellant’s confessions were properly admitted; no prejudicial error occurred at trial in using restraints on appellant; there was no need to hold a competency hearing; appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel; the trial court was presumptively aware of its authority to strike the special circumstance finding. We affirm.

Factual Background

There being no insufficiency of evidence claim, we synopsize the evidence with a view favoring the judgment. (People v. Woodberry (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 695, 699 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 330 ]; Buckert v. Briggs (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 296, 299 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 61 ].) Other facts, as they relate to claimed errors, will be later discussed.

On April 23, 1986, about 9 p.m., Gregory Kuskoski (victim) and his friend Joe Alvarez left work in the victim’s pickup truck. They drove to an El Monte residence to buy some marijuana. Joe went inside, leaving his wallet, bookbag and other possessions in the truck, and the…

I concur in the judgment. I regard this as a razor thin case on the admissibility of appellant’s statement to his probation officer. I concur solely because I am, convinced there is substantial evidence supporting the *1431 conclusion the probation officer made it clear to appellant he had shifted roles and was allied with law enforcement before appellant uttered the damaging admissions. The issue remains razor thin because of appellant’s intellectual limitations. Conceivably, this warning did not register at all or evaporated from his memory before he and the probation officer began conversing about the crime. Yet I cannot say substantial evidence is lacking to support the opposite inference.

WOODS (Fred), J.

A jury convicted appellant of first degree murder (Pen. Code, [1] § 187) and robbery (§ 211). It also found true a robbery special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and two firearm use allegations (§ 12022.5). We find that: appellant's confessions were properly admitted; no prejudicial error occurred at trial in using restraints on appellant; there was no need to hold a competency hearing; appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel; the trial court was presumptively aware of its authority to strike the special circumstance finding. We affirm.

There being no insufficiency of evidence claim, we synopsize the evidence with a view favoring the judgment. ( People v. Woodberry (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 695, 699 [ 89 Cal. Rptr. 330 ]; Buckert v. Briggs (1971) 15 Cal. App.3d 296, 299 [ 93 Cal. Rptr. 61 ].) Other facts, as they relate to claimed errors, will be later discussed.

On April 23, 1986, about 9 p.m., Gregory Kuskoski (victim) and his friend Joe Alvarez left work in the victim's pickup truck. They drove to an El Monte residence to buy some marijuana. Joe went inside, leaving his wallet, bookbag and other possessions in the truck, and the…