Sandoval

People v. Sandoval

Good Law
188 Cal. App. 3d 1428·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1333·234 Cal. Rptr. 97
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1987D002694California2,968 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

Frank Sandoval appeals the latest of many judgments of conviction; this time another for residential burglary. We affirm the judgment after rejecting his claim the trial court’s failure to exercise discretion to exclude evidence of his prior convictions for impeachment requires reversal, his contention that the court failed to take a separate jury trial waiver on the trial of his prior conviction enhancement allegations, and his charge that his jury trial waiver was tainted by pretrial evidentiary rulings and requires a reversal per se.

I

Sandoval first argues his general waiver of a jury trial, after the granting of his motion to bifurcate the trial on the current charged offenses from the fact-finding regarding the truth of allegations he had suffered prior felony convictions, did not relieve the trial court from its obligation to take a separate jury-trial waiver as to the portion relating to the prior convictions. We find no case or statutory authority supporting Sandoval’s contention. He does not contend any constitutional right has been violated. We find there is no such duty.

The justification for a bifurcated proceeding relating to prior convictions is to…

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.