P. v. Tassin
Filed 10/16/08 P. v. Tassin CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HAROLD JOSEPH TASSIN, Defendant and Appellant. | B197553 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA081194) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 19, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. On page 9, first sentence of the beginning of the last paragraph after the words Defendant pleaded, add the word not in front of the word guilty so that the sentence reads:
Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
2. On page 11, first paragraph under A.Amended Information is modified to read as follows:
Defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it allowed the amended information, that added Count 6, to be filed just prior to opening statements at trial, almost nine months after the information was filed. According to defendant, the amendment was an unfair surprise and added a chargeshooting at an inhabited dwellingthat was not shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing. Defendant argues that due to the timing of the amendment, his trial counsel could not adjust his trial strategy to address adequately the new charge, resulting in a denial of due process.
3. On page 12, the paragraph that begins at the bottom of the page, the third sentence is modified to read as follows:
Perhaps counsel chose not to object because, notwithstanding his argument, he believed it would be determined that the evidence at the preliminary hearing legally supported the new charge of shooting at an inhabited dwelling.
4. On page 13, at the end of the first sentence under Hilts Preliminary Hearing Testimony after the word jury, add the words,
as a violation of the Constitutional right to confrontation.
5. On page 13, the last paragraph that begins with the words prior to the commencement of trial, replace the word trial with opening statements.
6. On page 14, add to the end of the first sentence of the last full paragraph after the word whereabouts, the words or speak to Spikes at Spikess house.
7. On page 18, add to the first sentence under C.Jury Instruction on Self-Defense, after the words Count 6, and before the dash, the words (Count 4 to the jury).
8. On page 18, the second line from the bottom of the page inside the quotation for the People v. Rundle case, take out the word the before the word law.
9. On page 19, add to the third line from the top of the page after the sentence ending with the word self-defense, as follows:
(self-defense is a defense to section 246). Any failure of further clarification did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. ( 1259.)
10. On page 23, delete the words daughter, or grandchildren on the fourth and fifth lines of the first full paragraph after the word house, and before the word might add and occupants of the house.
11. On page 24, on the fourth line of the second full paragraph change the word March to February.
Petition for rehearing is denied.
There is no change in judgment.
MOSK, J. TURNER, P. J. ARMSTRONG, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
