P. v. Rhoades CA2/4
Richard Daniel Rhoades (appellant) was convicted of attempted robbery and assault. His sentence included a term imposed under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), which requires the court to impose a five-year enhancement for his prior conviction. His court-appointed attorney filed a brief in accordance with the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Appellant filed a supplemental brief. He also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends the sentence imposed punished him twice for the same behavior in violation of the “Double Jeopardy” Clause of the United States Constitution, and that trial counsel was ineffective for admitting his guilt to the attempted robbery charge and for failing to interview and/or call additional witnesses. We conclude there was no double jeopardy or double punishment violation, and that appellant has failed to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective.
Comments on P. v. Rhoades CA2/4