<h6>PEOPLE v. ROGERS</h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6 align="center">Filed 8/21/06</h6> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p>THE PEOPLE, )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Respondent, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S005502</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) </p> <br /> <p>DAVID KEITH ROGERS, )</p> <br /> <p> ) Kern County</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 33477</p> <br /> <p>_______________________________________ )<u></u></p> <br /> <p><b>Continue from Part II ……. </b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p>Defendant further claims the trial court's failure to transcribe the in-chambers discussions in violation of section 190.9 is reversible per se, and urges us to reconsider our decision in <i>People v. Cummings, supra,</i> 4 Cal.4th at page 1333, footnote 70, rejecting such a claim. We decline to do so. Defendant next contends the trial court's failure to adhere to the requirements of section 190.9 arbitrarily denied him a <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">state statutory entitlement</a> in violation of his <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law</a>. (<i>Hicks v. Oklahoma </i>(1980) 447 U.S. 343, 346.) As we observed above, this claim was forfeited by defendant's agreement to the procedure followed. </p> <br /> <p>Defendant finally asserts that â€