Title: P. v. Lewis & Oliver
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S033436M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: November 2, 2006

Filed 11/1/06 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S033436 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
ALBERT LEWIS and 
) 
ANTHONY CEDRIC OLIVER, 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendants and Appellants. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. BA001542 
___________________________________ ) 
 
BY THE COURT: 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
 
The opinion is this case, filed August 24, 2006, and appearing at 39 Cal.4th 
970, is modified as follows: 
 
(1)  The fifth sentence of the third full paragraph on page 983 is modified to read 
as follows:  “The shooter’s use of gloves would explain the lack of additional palm 
prints on the gun.” 
 
(2)  The last full paragraph on page 1036 is modified to read as follows:  “As for 
Oliver’s argument that denial of the continuance denied him the right to effective 
assistance of counsel, it appears that, even assuming counsel’s performance was 
constitutionally deficient, Oliver presented all witnesses available to him.  He does 
not indicate what additional evidence, if any, he would have presented on his own 
 
 
behalf had counsel behaved differently.  There was no reasonable probability of an 
adverse effect on the outcome.  (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 
668, 687-688, 694.)” 
 
(3)  At page 1067 the first full paragraph is deleted, and the following paragraph is 
inserted:  “The trial court instructed the jury with a modification of the 1989 
version of CALJIC No. 8.84.1, to which counsel did not object.  The modified 
language included: “You are to be guided by the previous instructions given in the 
first phase of this case which are applicable and pertinent to the determination of 
penalty.  However, you are to completely disregard any instructions given in the 
first phase which had prohibited you from considering pity or sympathy for a 
defendant.”  The trial court did not err in failing to instruct on which guilt phase 
instructions continued to apply at the penalty phase.  (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 
Cal.4th 475, 561.)” 
 
(4)  At page 1068 the third paragraph is deleted, and the following paragraph is 
inserted:  “Any delay in appointing counsel, processing the appeal, and executing 
sentence was necessary to carefully review the judgment and protect Oliver’s 
rights, and is not unconstitutional.  (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 709.)”   
 
 
This modification does not affect the judgment.