P. v. Roesing
It was alleged in an information filed March 7, 2011, that appellant, William Hampton Roesing, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and that he had served two separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). A jury convicted appellant of the lesser included offense of grand theft from a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), and in a separate proceeding appellant admitted the two prior prison term enhancement allegations. The court imposed a prison term of four years, consisting of the two-year midterm on the substantive offense and one year on each of the two prior prison term enhancements.
On appeal appellant argues that the prosecution violated his constitutional right to due process of law by commenting on (1) his failure to testify in his defense (Griffin error)[1] and (2) his silence after he was advised of his right to remain silent (Doyle error).[2] He acknowledges that he has waived this claim by his counsel’s failure to object below, but argues that this failure deprived him of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Appellant also contends the court erred in failing to order the district attorney to file a petition for the commitment of appellant to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 (section 3051). We affirm.
Comments on P. v. Roesing