P. v. Richardson CA2/2
Defendant and appellant Christopher Richardson appeals his robbery conviction in count 1, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Defendant contends that the trial court gave an erroneous response to a jury question, that the advisements required prior to accepting his admission of prior convictions were incomplete, and that defense counsel rendered constitutionally inadequate assistance. We find no merit to defendant’s contentions, and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Richardson CA2/2