Opinion ID: 1201769
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failure to Object to Evidence of Prior Conviction

Text: (26) Defendant contends that evidence of his prior conviction for grand theft from the person (ง 487, subd. 2) was not admissible to impeach his credibility as a witness. From this premise, defendant argues that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to solicit a ruling on the use of this prior conviction for impeachment, and by eliciting testimony from defendant on direct examination admitting the conviction. Contrary to defendant's argument, his prior conviction for grand theft was admissible for purposes of impeachment. Grand theft necessarily involves both moral turpitude and dishonesty ( People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 297 [14 Cal. Rptr.2d 418, 841 P.2d 938]), it is dissimilar from and substantially less inflammatory than the charged offense of capital murder, and defendant's conviction for this offense had occurred just three years before defendant's testimony. (See People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 [211 Cal. Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111].) Because the prosecution could and undoubtedly would have used the prior conviction to impeach defendant, defendant's attorney made a reasonable and common tactical decision to put the prior conviction before the jury promptly at the outset of defendant's direct examination. Defendant has not demonstrated that this action constituted ineffective assistance in this case.