People v. Linden CA2/4

INTRODUCTION

Stefan Mats Linden appeals from a judgment and sentence, following his convictions for attempted involuntary manslaughter and possession of two dirks or daggers. After appellant filed his opening brief, our Supreme Court ruled that a pocket knife which is “not fixed or immobile and could be closed simply by applying pressure to the back of the blade” does not constitute a dirk or dagger 1 within the meaning of Penal Code sections 16470 and 21310. (See People v. Castillolopez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 322, 333 (Castillolopez).) Respondent concedes that appellant’s two convictions for possession of a dirk or dagger must be reversed, as no evidence was presented that the switchblade knives here were “fixed or immobile.” Accordingly, we reverse those convictions. As to the remaining conviction for attempted involuntary manslaughter, appellant contends it must be reversed, as there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. He further contends he was denied a fair trial due to judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and the trial court’s failure to sanitize a prior conviction for committing a lewd act on a child. Finally, he contends his admission to prior…