Fosselman

People v. Fosselman

Good Law
189 Cal. Rptr. 855·1983 Cal. LEXIS 164·33 Cal. 3d 572·659 P.2d 1144
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 17, 1983Crim. No. 22474California3,972 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Mosk, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and battery. He contends that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence and that he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel because of his attorney’s failure to *577 object to alleged misconduct by the prosecutor. No reversible error appears on either ground.

We also review an order denying defendant’s motion for new trial. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. 1.) Because the trial court mistakenly believed it lacked authority to grant a new trial on the ground of inadequate representation of counsel, it declined to rule on the merits of the motion. We conclude that such authority exists, and therefore reverse and remand the proceeding to the trial court for a new hearing on the motion for new trial.

Defendant was employed on the swing shift, and after completing work at 12:30 a.m. went to a coworker’s home and drank two beers. About 5 a.m. he attempted to visit a female friend. She had recently moved, however, and another woman had taken her place in the apartment. The new tenant was disturbed at being awakened by defendant’s insistent demand…

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.