P. v. Winfield

Filed 10/23/06 P. v. Winfield CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SIX

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 26, 2006, be modified as follows:

1. On page 9, the entire text under section II is deleted and the following paragraphs are inserted in its place.

II

Winfield contends he was denied the right to subpoena witnesses and the right to have a defense investigator appointed.

Winfield believes the trial court and its staff have a duty to assist him to subpoena witnesses. But Winfield points to no such request for assistance. At best, the record shows Winfield's mid-trial request that the court give him an opportunity to subpoena witnesses. The request was made after the prosecution rested. It was clearly untimely. Winfield cites no authority to support the proposition that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to subpoena witnesses for him.

Similarly, Winfield made no request for an investigator. He cites no authority that the court has a sua sponte duty to appoint one. (See § 987.9, subd. (a) [funds for investigator in capital case upon defendant's request].) Contrary to Winfield's argument, his request for an opportunity to subpoena witnesses was not a request for an appointment of an investigator.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.