Opinion ID: 2618245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 63

Heading: Lasting's Absence From Some Proceedings

Text: (73) Reilly contends reversal is required because his trial counsel, Lasting, did not attend four penalty phase proceedings. Reilly alleges these absences left him with no viable representation at these proceedings in violation of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Because the four proceedings Lasting missed were of no consequence to Reilly's defense, we find no violation of his right to counsel. The first three proceedings of which Reilly complains were actually one hearing, occurring on September 19, 1983. At that hearing, attorneys for Morgan (Stone) and Hardy (Demby), the prosecutor, and the trial court discussed whether Cliff Morgan should be severed from the penalty phase due to his medical condition. The parties neither presented evidence nor argued the point; the hearing was apparently merely an informational meeting. Although Stone and Demby both reserved the right to make a motion for a new trial, Lasting's absence did not prevent him from moving for a new trial. The record shows he eventually made a lengthy new trial motion, although he did not rely on Morgan's illness as a ground for a new trial. Later in this same hearing, the parties engaged in what Reilly terms argument on the notice in aggravation. Lasting's absence from the hearing, however, was inconsequential. The disputed notice concerned Hardy 's prior confrontation with police when he possessed the nunchakus. This notice, even if defective, could not have affected Reilly's penalty phase trial. Reilly also complains Lasting was absent from a September 19th discussion of penalty phase instructions. The discussion, however, consisted of the trial court informing the parties that it would not instruct the jury about the Governor's commutation power. (See People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136 [207 Cal. Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430] [ Ramos II ]; People v. Ramos (1982) 30 Cal.3d 553 [180 Cal. Rptr. 266, 639 P.2d 908] [ Ramos I ].) Lasting's absence did not affect Reilly's defense, however, because it is unreasonable to assume Lasting would have argued in favor of giving the Ramos instruction. Finally, Reilly argues Lasting was absent from a hearing, held at a Los Angeles hospital, at which the trial court took evidence in support of Stone's mistrial motion. It is unclear how Lasting's presence at this hearing would have affected Reilly's defense inasmuch as the hearing was on Stone's motion, and the grounds of the motion  Morgan's deteriorating physical condition  were unrelated to Reilly's defense. In sum, we find Lasting's absence at these foregoing hearings did not deprive Reilly of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.