Opinion ID: 1196295
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Request to Have Defendant Shackled During Trial; Exclusion of Defendant From In Camera Hearing

Text: (20) Adverting again to his shackling at trial, defendant lays partial blame on his counsel for requesting the restraints absent some indication the court found them necessary. He also contends counsel was ineffective for excluding him from the in camera hearing at which the matter was initially raised. As previously discussed, defendant did not suffer any impairment of his right to a fair trial by being physically restrained during the proceedings. Hence, any error in ordering the restraints or conducting the in camera hearing, whether on the part of the court or counsel or both, does not warrant reversal of either the conviction or sentence. ( People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 217; cf. People v. Hamilton (1985) 41 Cal.3d 408, 424 [221 Cal. Rptr. 902, 710 P.2d 981] [Although fault might be found with counsel's reasoning in requesting shackling in the first instance..., the matter became moot when manifest need arose.].)