Lightsey

People v. Lightsey

Bad Law
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 589·2012 Cal. LEXIS 6361·54 Cal. 4th 668·2012 WL 2685249·279 P.3d 1072
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 9, 2012S048440California28,578 words

Opinion

Opinion

Werdegar, J.

A jury in Kern County Superior Court convicted defendant Christopher Charles Lightsey in 1995 of the first degree murder of William Compton (Pen. Code, § 187) and of burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) and robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)) related to the murder. As to each count, the jury found true the allegations that defendant personally used a deadly weapon in committing the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In conjunction with the murder verdict, the jury found true three special circumstance allegations: that the murder was committed in the course of a burglary and a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), (G)), and the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). The jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court, after denying defendant’s motion for a new trial and the automatic application to modify the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), sentenced defendant to death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) As discussed in part I.B.l.b., post, we conclude the trial court committed reversible error by permitting defendant to represent himself during…

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.