Barnum

People v. Barnum

Good Law
104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 19·86 Cal. App. 4th 731
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 18, 2001C031302California6,111 words

Opinion

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

A jury convicted defendant of battery by an inmate on a noninmate and resisting an executive officer with force, and found true four prior convictions under the Three Strikes law. (Pen.Code, §§ 4501.5, 69, 667, subds.(b)-(i).)

In the published portion of this opinion we hold the fact a trial was conducted in a state prison does not, of itself, establish the trial was unfair. We also conclude a trial court need not advise a self-represented defendant about his right not to testify. In the unpublished portion, we reject defendant's other contentions of error. We shall affirm.

The main issue at trial was whether guards acted properly when they took defendant from his cell, or acted with excessive force, which gave defendant and his cellmate the right to defend themselves. The cellmate pleaded guilty.

Officers John Cartier and Richard Eubanks had recently been assigned to the building in which defendant was housed and the prior guards had not regularly inspected the cells for contraband. Cartier and Eubanks began searching several cells each evening after dinner, sweeping the building clean, so they could then institute regular,…

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.