legal news

Home |  Link Directory |  Forum |  Gallery |  Cases |  CA Discovery Law

Register | Forgot Password
Search Members New Articles
  1. Fear Not Law Articles
  2. CA Unpub Decisions
  3. P. v. Pinks
  4. Comments on P. v. Pinks

P. v. Pinks
Male inmates in the Salinas Valley State Prison are expected to disrobe in their cells, bend over, and spread their buttocks at the direction of correctional officers outside their cells. During such a routine search for contraband on December 30, 2010, Correctional Officer Troy Miller noticed some lubricant in the rectal area of defendant Lennox Pinks and a plastic ball protruding from his rectum. Miller handcuffed defendant after having him dress and brought him to a more secure area in a health annex for a further search. Although defendant denied having any contraband on his person, Miller confirmed his observation during a repetition of the earlier examination. On further questioning by Miller, defendant admitted it was drugs and clarified that it was heroin. At Miller’s request, defendant removed a plastic-wrapped bindle and dropped it behind himself. Subsequent analysis by a criminologist confirmed that in defendant’s rectum were four plastic-wrapped bindles of black tar heroin totaling .35 grams in weight.
Facing charges of unauthorized possession of heroin in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6[1]) with a prior robbery conviction (§ 1170.12), defendant agreed to waive a jury trial on the condition that if convicted, his maximum sentence would be the lower term doubled to four years. The same day, August 20, 2012, defendant was convicted as charged after a court trial based on the above evidence with no testimony from defendant. He requested immediate sentencing and was sentenced the same day to prison for four years consecutive to any other sentence he was already serving. Defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal on October 11, 2012 that explained that his attorney had breached a promise to mail him a notice of appeal form.
By letter dated May 2, 2013, this court notified defendant that his appellate counsel filed a brief inviting us to identify any arguable appellate issues. Defendant has responded with a half-page handwritten letter acknowledging our letter and asking for assistance in arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective because defendant was not allowed to call specific witnesses. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment.

Post Reply
Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale