P. v. Robinson CA2/3
A jury found Brandon Robinson guilty of various offenses arising out of his sexual assault of three women over the course of about three months in 2017. During trial, his counsel declared a doubt as to Robinson’s competence to stand trial. The trial court appointed a psychologist to examine Robinson under Penal Code section 1368, even though that psychologist had been previously retained by the defense. The trial court then found that there was insufficient evidence to hold a competence hearing under section 1368. Robinson’s primary contention on appeal thus concerns whether there was substantial evidence to raise a doubt about his competence to stand trial and whether the psychologist’s appointment violated, among others, his right to counsel and attorney-client privilege. He also raises instructional issues, contends his sentence is cruel and/or unusual punishment, and argues he is entitled to a Franklin hearing.
Comments on P. v. Robinson CA2/3