Opinion ID: 1113193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: Questions about sentencing credits.

Text: Salvatore Russo, a prison teacher, testified for the defense that while on death row, defendant volunteered for educational help and made progress in reading, writing, and mathematics. On cross-examination, and without objection, the prosecutor asked Russo whether inmates can sometimes get work time or good time credits leading to an early out by participating in vocational and educational programs, and whether they may lose such benefits if they present disciplinary problems. Russo agreed. (30) Defendant urges that examination on these issues violated his California constitutional right of due process (Cal. Const., art. I, งง 7, 15) because, like the so-called Briggs Instruction struck down in People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136 [207 Cal. Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430], it invited the jury to speculate that a sentence of life without parole might someday be commuted, permitting his release. (See id., pp. 155-159.) [28] Defendant waived a direct appellate challenge to admission of this evidence by failing to object or move to strike in the trial court. Nor can defendant's claim of ineffective assistance succeed. The prosecutor's questions were probably improper under principles established in Ramos. But even if counsel should have intervened, the omission does not undermine confidence in the judgment. As defendant concedes, the prosecutor's tactic was subtle. On the other hand, the jury was expressly instructed that a death sentence would be carried out, and that if the jury sentenced defendant to life without parole, he will not be released from prison. We have routinely held that such admonitions dispel Ramos prejudice. (E.g., People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375 [247 Cal. Rptr. 31, 753 P.2d 1109]; People v. Poggi, supra, 45 Cal.3d 306, 336.) Defendant's suggestion that the instruction was not sufficiently prompt because it came only at the end of the case is not persuasive. [29]