P. v. Landaverde
Defendant Jesse Solis Landaverde appeals from his conviction of forcible oral copulation, second degree robbery and kidnapping for carjacking. He contends: (1) allowing a uniformed officer to stand next to defendant while he testified was prejudicial error; (2) the jury was not properly instructed on a kidnapping special circumstance attached to the oral copulation charge (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subd. (a)); and (3) the life sentence imposed on the kidnapping for carjacking conviction was an unauthorized sentence.[1] We modify the judgment to stay the sentence on the kidnapping for carjacking conviction, but otherwise affirm.
Comments on P. v. Landaverde