Supreme Court of California

Attorney conflict claims under the California constitution are to be analyzed under the same standard as that articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mickens v. Taylor, (2002) 535 U.S. 162. In an automatic appeal in a death penalty case, the conviction and sentence are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) alleged conflict of interest based on counsel's compensation agreement; 2) a denial of a request for second counsel; 3) improper admission of evidence of defendant's character; 4) the testimony of defendant's mother; 5) prosecutorial misconduct; 6) admissibility of DNA evidence; 7) a denial of a request for continuance; 8) a Faretta motion; 9) challenges to California's death penalty law; and 10) international law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/05/2009
• Published 01/05/2009

Judges

• CORRIGAN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Robert Derham, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Anselmo, for Defendant and Appellant., Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Eric Chistoffersen and Lloyd G. Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.