P. v. Miranda
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.
Comments on P. v. Miranda