Defendant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court, San Diego County (California), which convicted defendant for pimping, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 266h, and pandering, in violation of § 266i (b).
Subsequent to being convicted of pimping and pandering, defendant argued that the trial court violated his right to counsel by denying his motion for a continuance to seek substitute counsel on the first day of trial. However, the court held that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance because defendant failed to establish that he made a good faith, diligent effort to obtain retained counsel before the scheduled trial date. In so holding, los angeles ada lawyers the court noted that defendant’s right to counsel did not include the right to be represented by a specific attorney from the firm appointed to defend him and that the counsel representing defendant stated that he was prepared for the trial. Reviewing the case, the court then held that any prosecutorial comment concerning defendant’s failure to testify at trial was harmless error in light of the trial court’s curative instruction and the overwhelming evidence in support of defendant’s guilt. Applying a three-part test, the court then concluded that the trial court’s denial of the opportunity for probation, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1203.065, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentences for pimping and pandering because prosecutorial comments concerning defendant’s failure to testify constituted harmless, if any, error, and the denial of probation to defendant pursuant to state law did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Defendant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which convicted him of keeping or occupying a room with paraphernalia for the purpose of recording or registering a bet on a horse race in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 337a(2) and recording and registering such bet in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 337a(4) and denied his motion for a new trial.
Defendant was convicted of the crimes of keeping or occupying a room with paraphernalia for the purpose of recording or registering a bet on a horse race and of recording and registering such bet. The questions presented upon his appeal from the judgments and from the order denying a new trial concerned the admissibility of certain telephone conversations and the refusal of the trial court to give three requested jury instructions. Upon consideration, the court affirmed, holding that: (1) because the judgment of conviction was amply supported by defendant’s testimony, it was not necessary to consider the question of law presented by him concerning the admissibility of the telephone conversations; if the conversations were properly received in evidence, they tended to prove either the acts which defendant admitted or conduct constituting a crime or crimes of which he was neither charged nor convicted; (2) no error was committed by the trial court in refusing to give defendant’s requested instruction on circumstantial evidence; and (3) the other jury instructions submitted by defendant were properly refused by the trial court.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.