Opinion ID: 1388611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: Admission of subsequent felony conviction.

Text: (32) Defendant claims the trial court erred by admitting his conviction of the Pacoima robbery as aggravating evidence under section 190.3, factor (c). He notes our holding in People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144 [222 Cal. Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480], that while factor (b) of section 190.3 imposes no time limitation on the introduction of violent criminal conduct committed by the defendant, the `prior felony conviction[s]' described in [factor] (c) ... are limited to those entered before commission of the capital crime.... ( Balderas, supra, at p. 201, third italics in original.) As defendant suggests, his conviction of the Pacoima robbery, like the robbery itself, occurred after the capital robbery-murder was committed against Burke. The subsequent robbery conviction was therefore inadmissible under Balderas as an independent factor in aggravation. (See also People v. Morales, supra, 48 Cal.3d 527, 567.) However, defendant failed to object or request limiting instructions when the conviction was introduced in evidence. Indeed, for obvious tactical reasons, the defense sought to stipulate to the convictions as a means of excluding the underlying facts. Hence, the issue is waived on appeal. In any event, no basis for reversal appears. The Pacoima robbery conviction, based on defendant's guilty plea, was admissible under factor ( b ) as proof of his participation in the underlying violent criminal activity. (See, e.g., People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577, 632-633 [juvenile adjudication for violent criminality]; People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 294-295 [247 Cal. Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052] [same].) Such proof was significant considering the victim's failure to identify defendant at the penalty trial. Moreover, though the prosecutor also incorrectly argued the conviction's relevance under factor (c), and the jury received no contrary instruction, we see no prejudice. Once the brutal facts of the Pacoima robbery were disclosed, [t]he additional fact that defendant was convicted of that offense could have added very little to the total picture considered by the jury.... ( Morales, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 567, italics in original.)