P. v. Badena
On his original and supplemental petition for writ of habeas corpus Defendant contends that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel by (1) failing to request accident and self-defense instructions to be given specifically as to the robbery count and its enhancements; and (2) by failing to request an instruction on theft as a lesser included offense to the robbery count, and by acquiescing in the court's statement that neither counsel desired such an instruction as there was no evidence to support such an offense. In his second supplemental petition for writ of habeas corpus he asserts that the court's imposition of the 10-year enhancement for his personal use of a firearm in committing first degree robbery is disproportionate and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the California Constitution. The petitions are denied.
Comments on P. v. Badena