P. v. Verdugo
Defendant appeals from judgments entered following two trials resulting in (1) a jury conviction for grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a)),[1]with court findings that defendant suffered three prior serious and/or violent felony convictions and two prior prison terms ( 667, subds. (c) & (e), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, subd. (c)) and (2) a court trial conviction for possession of a dirk, dagger, or sharp instrument by a prisoner ( 4502, subd. (a)), with admissions defendant suffered four prior serious and/or violent convictions ( 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)).
The court sentenced defendant to six years in prison for possession of a sharp instrument (shank), and to a consecutive prison term of 25 years to life for the grand theft conviction. Defendant contends that in the shank case the trial court deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial because the People failed to preserve the shank, and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements made to jail deputies without being advised of his Miranda (Miranda v Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) rights. Defendant also argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear both cases because there was substantial evidence defendant suffered from a developmental disability.
Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Verdugo