P. v. Miranda
Filed 2/16/07 P. v. Miranda CA2/4
NOTTO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ALFONSO MIRANDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B188361
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA086510) |
APPEALfrom a judgment of the Superior Court ofLos Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
DavidL. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant andAppellant.
BillLockyer, Attorney General, Mary JoGraves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, AssistantAttorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Catherine Okawa Kohm, Deputy AttorneysGeneral, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted defendant Alfonso Miranda of multiplecrimes, including the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder ofhis wife.
Onthis appeal, defendant primarily contends that his attempted murder convictionmust be reversed because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to requestCALJIC No. 8.73. The instruction explains that provocation insufficient toreduce murder to manslaughter may still negate the allegation that theattempted murder was deliberate and premeditated. We reject the contention,finding there is a reasonable basis for not requesting the instruction. Although defendant testified at trial, he claimed that he had â€
| Description | A jury convicted defendant of multiplecrimes, including the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder of his wife. On this appeal, defendant primarily contends that his attempted murder conviction must be reversed because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request CALJIC No. 8.73. The instruction explains that provocation insufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter may still negate the allegation that the attempted murder was deliberate and premeditated. Court reject the contention, finding there is a reasonable basis for not requesting the instruction. Although defendant testified at trial, he claimed that he had "blacked out" when he attacked his wife. Hence, defendant failed to testify about his stateof mind when he attempted to kill her. In contrast, there was overwhelming evidence (including defendant's own testimony) that defendant excessively drank and used methamphetamine the night of the crimes. Given that record, trial counsel could reasonably conclude that it would be more effective to focus solely onthe argument that defendant's voluntary intoxication created a reasonable doubt that he entertained the specific intents required for both the crime of attempted murder and the allegation that it was a willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempt. Secondarily,defendant raises one claim of sentencing error which the Attorney General concedes. Court direct modification of the judgmentto correct that one error, but, in all other respects, affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
