P. v. Banuelos
Miguel Banuelos appeals from his misdemeanor convictions for evading a peace officer and driving under the influence. He contends his attorney was ineffective because she did not present or argue his motion for a continuance to retain an expert witness. He also asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing and that the trial court erred by refusing to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutors statement. Banueloss arguments lack merit. His attorneys failure to argue his tardy and unsupported motion to continue was reasonable and, in any event, Banuelos cannot show prejudice. The prosecutors comment on the absence of a motorcycle expert was not misconduct. The trial court did not err by declining to tell the jury to disregard the comment. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Banuelos