Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Lambert

P. v. Lambert

Filed 2/7/07 P. v. Lambert CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

JOHNNIE HAROLD LAMBERT,

Defendant and Appellant.

B190214

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SA055340)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Antonio Barreto, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Kenneth J. Kao, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

Johnnie Harold Lambert (appellant) was convicted of two counts of child molestation. The victim, J.D., is the daughter of Debra, with whom appellant was living at that time. The trial court found true that appellant had previously been convicted of attempted rape, rape, and aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison, under the â€

Description	Appellant was convicted of two counts of child molestation. The victim, J.D., is the daughter of Debra, with whom appellant was living at that time. The trial court found true that appellant had previously been convicted of attempted rape, rape, and aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison, under the "Three Strikes" law. At the trial, J.D. described four separate incidents of misconduct by appellant. Court call them (1) the kissing incident, (2) the digital touching incident, (3) the kitchen incident, and (4) the tickling incident. The prosecution relied on the first two incidents for the two charged counts. Appellant contends that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance because he did not object to J.D.'s testimony about the other two incidents. Appellant also argues that the trial court should have given CALJIC Nos. 2.50.1 and 2.50.2 on uncharged offenses. Court find no error, and affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.