Hutchins

Appellant Clifton Hutchins argues the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to determine whether a peremptory challenge was based on purposeful race discrimination, resulting in violations of People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ] (Wheeler) and Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] (Batson). In the published part of this opinion, we conclude that the trial court applied the wrong standard in making its ruling, requiring conditional reversal. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we consider appellant’s other contentions that: (1) the admission of the contents of a laboratory report violated his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and cross-examination; (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial; (3) the court erred in concluding that two counts of rape occurred on separate occasions, within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.61, former subdivision (g) (as amended by Stats. 1998, ch. 936, § 9); (4) a $27,546.72 restitution order is unauthorized; and (5) the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct number of presentence credits.…