Pendleton

People v. Pendleton

Bad Law
158 Cal. Rptr. 343·1979 Cal. LEXIS 310·25 Cal. 3d 371·599 P.2d 649
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 14, 1979Crim. No. 20765California3,865 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Clark, J.

Defendant was convicted of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460), kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207) and rape (Pen. Code, § 261). He was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law on each count, the terms to run concurrently. Execution of sentence on the kidnaping and rape counts was stayed pending appeal, the stay to become permanent upon completion of the burglary term. The judgment will be affirmed.

Defendant makes three contentions on appeal. 1. The trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior *375 sex offenses, and in instructing the jury concerning the limited purposes for which the evidence might be considered. 2. Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial because he was represented by a partner in a law firm which acted as city attorney for another community and, although defendant’s attorney did not, other members of the firm exercised prosecutorial responsibilities in behalf of that community. (See Gov. Code, § 41805; People v. Rhodes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 180 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 235 , 524 P.2d 363 ].) 3. The trial court erred in refusing defendant’s request to instruct the jury on unauthorized…

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.