Stuckey

People v. Stuckey

Good Law
175 Cal. App. 4th 898·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1120·96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 9, 2009C057782California7,831 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

As we shall explain in a moment, defendant Gary Wayne Stuckey was convicted of a variety of drug offenses.

In hopes of being reinstated on probation and avoiding prison, defendant asked the trial court to appoint a psychotherapist and a drug treatment counselor to help him present addiction treatment options at the sentencing hearing. The trial court denied defendant’s motions, stating that it did not need expert testimony to help make the sentencing choice in this case. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing in which defense counsel and defendant himself vigorously argued that this case compelled reinstatement of probation, the trial court imposed the seven year eight month prison sentence to which defendant had agreed in an earlier plea bargain.

On appeal, defendant contends that Evidence Code section 730 requires the appointment of experts at public expense whenever an indigent criminal defendant shows experts to be reasonably necessary. Even in the absence of statutory authorization, defendant claims that appointment of experts for indigent criminal defendants is required by the equal protection, due process, and right to effective assistance of counsel…

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.