P. v. Tellez CA3
Defendant argues that the trial court was required to consider evidence of his conduct in prison because such evidence is customary in sentencing decisions and would demonstrate that defendant is “on the road to reformation.” The People respond that the remand was limited in scope, the court had discretion to limit the evidence, and, in any case, any error was harmless. If there was error here, we agree that it was harmless.
Both parties agree that any error in this instance only warrants reversal if it was prejudicial under the standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439; People v. Dobbins (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 176, 182.) Under Watson, we “ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (Partida, at p. 439.) Our “review focuses not on what a reasonable [factfinder] could do, but what such a [factfinder] is likely to have done in the absence of t
Comments on P. v. Tellez CA3