In Re Frank G.

I dissent.

Appellant contends that he was inadequately represented because his counsel did not challenge a confession as being the product of duress. My majority colleagues reject this for two reasons, neither of which I understand to be valid under the law of this state as enunciated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 ] and People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 299 , 604 P.2d 1051 ].

The first explanation given is that a diligent advocate might have made the tactical judgment that a duress challenge “would only weaken the credibility of appellant’s case.” It is difficult to see how failing to challenge the admissibility of a coerced confession provides any tactical advantage. (See People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 , and People v. Nation, supra, 26 Cal.3d 169, 179 .) The case was tried by the court. Even if the evidence supporting the use of duress in prompting the confession is very weak, the defense loses nothing in moving to strike it. If nothing more, such a motion preserves for the record defendant’s objection to admission of a confession he considers involuntary. At worst, the…

Frank G. appeals from a judgment committing him to the Youth Authority after the juvenile court sustained allegations *595 that appellant had committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236) and auto, theft (Veh. Code, § 10851).

The findings and judgment are based on evidence that appellant and several companions invaded a business establishment in the evening, captured and tied up the maintenance man and the plant manager, and took several items of property.

Appellant’s brother, Carlos, had previously been employed at the establishment. The plant manager recognized one of the masked robbers as Carlos by his voice.

Several months later, appellant went to the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and gave a tape-recorded confession. At trial, appellant testified that he gave the confession because he and his family had been threatened by Carlos, who was himself implicated in the robbery and demanded help in fabricating a defense.

Appellant contends that it was a deprivation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel for trial counsel to neglect making a challenge to the admissibility of the taped confession. This…

Frank G. appeals from a judgment committing him to the Youth Authority after the juvenile court sustained allegations that appellant had committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236) and auto theft (Veh. Code, § 10851).

The findings and judgment are based on evidence that appellant and several companions invaded a business establishment in the evening, captured and tied up the maintenance man and the plant manager, and took several items of property.

Appellant's brother, Carlos, had previously been employed at the establishment. The plant manager recognized one of the masked robbers as Carlos by his voice.

Several months later, appellant went to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and gave a tape-recorded confession. At trial, appellant testified that he gave the confession because he and his family had been threatened by Carlos, who was himself implicated in the robbery and demanded help in fabricating a defense.

(1) Appellant contends that it was a deprivation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel for trial counsel to neglect making a challenge to the admissibility of the taped confession.…