Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Hispanics From the Petit Jury

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor improperly utilized three peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors with Hispanic surnames. [3] (See People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748; Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69.) At trial, counsel failed to make a Wheeler motion. This omission waives the right to complain on appeal. ( People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 166, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679, 802 P.2d 169.) Alternatively, defendant argues the trial court had a sua sponte duty to question the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges based on the court's general obligation to ensure a fair jury. He cites no authority in support of this argument. (See ante, at pp. 425-426 of 75 Cal.Rptr.2d, at pp. 387-388 of 956 P.2d.) Moreover, it conflicts with the procedure set forth in Wheeler allocating to the aggrieved party the burden of raising the point in a timely fashion and making a prima facie case of impermissible discrimination. ( People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 280,148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.) Whatever the obligations of the trial court to control the jury selection process, the defendant must comply with procedural prerequisites to preserve any error for appeal. ( People v. Avena, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 413, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 916 P.2d 1000.) Absent an appropriate challenge to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptories, the issue is not preserved. (Cf. People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1160, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950.) Defendant makes a related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to preserve the Wheeler issue. On this record, we are unable to determine the reason counsel did not make a timely challenge. He may have perceived the prosecutor could adequately rebut the charge, or he himself may have been dissatisfied with the individuals excused. Since the decision may well have been an informed tactical choice within the range of reasonable competence, the conviction must be affirmed. [Citation.] ( People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425, 152 Cal. Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859.)