Mar

People v. Mar

Good Law
77 Cal. App. 4th 1284·92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 771
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 2, 2000F028945California4,855 words

Opinion

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

Defendant James Allen Mar was convicted after jury trial of violating Penal Code sections 69 and 148.10, subdivision (a) (interfering with and resisting a peace officer); the court found allegations that defendant had suffered two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law and had served a prior prison term to be true. [1] He was sentenced to 26 years' imprisonment.

Defendant challenges his most recent convictions on numerous grounds. In the published portion of this opinion, we address defendant's contention that the trial court infringed on his constitutional protection against self-incrimination by refusing to remove the electronic stun belt he wore during trial while he testified. Having concluded that the record discloses the existence of a manifest need for restraint and that defendant did not show that the security risks which necessitated belting were reduced or eliminated while he testified, we find no error. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we address defendant's claims of instructional error. As prejudicial error has not been shown, we will affirm.

At approximately 3:00…

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.