Court Opinion

ID: 9723439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:15:16.301316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:48.834981
License: Public Domain

Opinion
LILLIE, P. J.
A jury found defendant guilty of first degree residential robbery, and to be true a firearm use allegation. He admitted two prior serious felony (robbery) convictions. He appeals from the judgment.
*579Facts
Prosecution’s Case
About 5 p.m. on April 21, as Deborah Clarke entered the front door of an apartment she shared with Tim Dolan, who was then out of town, three men appeared, held guns on her, forced their way into the apartment and ordered her to sit on the couch in the living room and shut up. One of the men held a gun to her head while the other two went through the apartment; she was too scared to look at their faces and did not get a good look at them; she could not see into the bedroom from where she was seated. She described the build of the three men, some facial characteristics, coloring, what they wore and the guns they used. The man who held the gun to her head wore a green and brown camouflage hat which folded down in front and back similar to a hunter’s hat, and the gun was small and fit his hand; another man held a handgun and the third, a gun with a large barrel; they were there about 20 minutes.
When they left, the men took everything they could carry including ski equipment, ski boots, warm clothes, VCR, tapes, .35-millimeter camera, a .22-caliber rifle belonging to Dolan, miscellaneous items and a couple of hundred dollars from her purse; they took no jewelry because it was costume, but her jewelry box on the dresser had been moved and was left wide open. The telephone wires in the bedroom had been pulled out from the wall. One of the men ran out to get the car while the other two waited inside; when they left, Clarke ran to the kitchen window and saw the two men run to and throw the stolen items into a small four-door compact car like a Datsun, orange in color (it could have been green or blue for she looked primarily at the license plate), license number 1DHG983, which she copied on a slip of paper. She called police.
When Officer Horn arrived, Clarke was crying and upset and told him she had been robbed. The apartment had been ransacked and disheveled, drawers and clothing had been thrown about the bedroom and furniture had been moved. Clarke thought the men were Latin from the way they were dressed. She described the men to Officer Horn by hair color, complexion, age, height, clothing, weight and firearm; the man who held the gun to her head wore a multi-colored cap with ear flaps. She gave him the paper on which she had written the license number. Later she described the car to him as a small orange two-door vehicle (she was not sure of the color). Police lifted various fingerprints including one from the lid of Clarke’s jewelry box; that fingerprint belongs to defendant.
Clarke could not identify defendant as one of the men who robbed her; she had not looked at them much because she was too scared and nervous *580and was afraid of being shot, nor was she able to identify defendant’s photo from a six-photo lineup shown to her by police, even when he was later pointed out to her. She did not know defendant, had no relationship with him and had never seen him before.
Forty-two days later, at 2:25 p.m., Officer McKillop noticed a blue four-door Datsun with license number 1DHG983; the expiration tag had been tampered with to make the “2” in 1982 look like an “8” for 1988; he pulled the vehicle over; defendant was the driver, his brother, a passenger; in the back was a camouflage-colored hat (identified by Clarke at trial as the type worn by the man who held the gun to her head) and under the driver’s seat, a fully loaded .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun (identified by Clarke as like the gun held to her head). Defendant told police his name was Cliff Brown, and was booked under that name. The next day, after waiving his Miranda rights, defendant told Detective Brown he was not involved in the incident at Clarke’s apartment and had no knowledge of it; the gun found in the car was his; the blue Datsun belonged to his girl friend who also owned an orange Datsun which he used on numerous occasions.
Clarke was cross-examined by defense counsel about her family; she testified she has a sister, Susan, married to Jeff Rogline, Jeff has two brothers, Tony and Chris, and a sister named Kathy who has a child by a man named Eddie Brown. She has never had any relationship with defendant, and never saw him before. On redirect examination she reiterated she never in her life had seen defendant and had never invited him to her home; compared in weight and height with the three robbers, defendant looked “that size exactly.” Tim Dolan did not know defendant and had not given him permission to come to the apartment.
Defense
Defendant denied robbing Clarke. He testified he had known her since she was in high school and had met her several times through Jeff Rogline who lives with Clarke’s sister Susan; his (defendant’s) stepbrother had a child with Jeff Rogline’s sister; he knows Jeff Rogline, Chris, Kathy, Coleen and Donnie.
Defendant did not dispute that the fingerprint on the jewelry box was his. He testified that in April, before the robbery, Clarke “paid me $1,600 to render—ft[] An illegal service that I didn’t comply with, [fí] I sold her bunk cocaine that wasn’t no good”; Clarke called him at his brother’s house and asked him to get her two ounces of cocaine; he went to her apartment and sold her what she thought to be cocaine, but was lactose or “bunk” cocaine, for $1,600; he remembered Clarke’s jewelry box because she kept money in *581it and from it took $100 bills to pay him; he did not remember touching the box and had no reason to touch it, but must have done so; he left after she paid him the $1,600. He admitted Clarke never told him she was going to “get back at” him for selling her “bunk” cocaine; he never talked to her again. He also admitted he had been convicted of robbery in 1975 and robbery in 1980; as far as he knows Clarke knew about these convictions.
I
Attorney-client Privilege
At the conclusion of defendant’s testimony the following exchange occurred:
“The Court: Did you tell your lawyer about the story you just related on the stand?
“Mr. Takakjian [Defense Counsel]: Your honor, excuse me. I must object to the court’s question. That violates the attorney-client privilege.
“The Court: Did you tell your lawyer what you have testified to on the stand today?
“Mr. Takakjian: May the record reflect my objection?
“The Court: Yes, it will so reflect.
“Mr. Takakjian: Thank you, your honor.
“The Court: Did you tell your lawyer about this story that you told on the stand?
“The Witness [Defendant]: No. I just told him what it referred to. I didn’t tell all, exactly.
“The Court: When did you first tell him that?
“The Witness: From the very beginning.
“The Court: Well, so he knew about it at the time that Miss Clarke was on the stand, is that correct?
“Mr. Takakjian: Your honor, again my objection is that that violates the attorney-client privilege, sir.
*582“The Court: I know, we have heard that before. ffl] Let’s get on with the case. [][] He knew about it before he was cross examining Miss Clarke, didn’t he?” This question the court withdrew.
All discussion thereafter arising out of the foregoing exchange took place out of the presence of the jury. The court disclosed to counsel that the reason for its questions was to determine if defense counsel knew how defendant would testify at the time he cross-examined Clarke and, if he did, before she was excused and possibly could not be recalled, he should have asked her if she bought any cocaine from him. Defense counsel responded that he “made a tactical decision not to ask her those questions,” and the prosecutor has a right to recall her.
The prosecutor made an effort to recall Clarke but was unable to get in touch with her; however, he felt it was unnecessary in light of her emphatic denials she had ever known or met defendant. Later the court denied a motion for mistrial holding no privilege had been violated because when defendant testified to the drug deal, he disclosed in court what he had told his counsel thus, he no longer had the privilege.
Appellant contends that the court’s questions violated the attorney-client privilege denying his right to counsel, and the error is reversible per se.

A. Violation of Privilege

The questions directed by the court to the defendant can only be properly characterized as within the scope of confidential communications between defendant and his counsel protected by the attorney-client privilege. (Evid. Code, §§ 917, 954; Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 601 [208 Cal.Rptr. 886, 691 P.2d 642].)

B. No Waiver of Privilege

Defendant’s testimony concerning facts that might have been previously related by him to his counsel is not equivalent to disclosure by him of the actual content of an attorney-client communication, and does not constitute a waiver of the privilege. (Maas v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 601, 606 [221 Cal.Rptr. 245]; Littlefield v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 477, 483 [186 Cal.Rptr. 368].) He testified only to facts supporting his defense that he did not rob Clarke, and she “set him up” because he sold her “bunk” cocaine; he did not testify concerning, nor did any of his testimony relate to any communication he might have had with his counsel. We cannot say that defendant’s testimony amounted to a disclosure of a confidential communication; it did not constitute a waiver of the privilege.

*583
C. Chapman Error

Appellant argues that the violation of the attorney-client privilege denied him a right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, citing various cases here not directly in point. They involve a direct physical invasion of the privacy of consultations between a defendant and his attorney by a government agent who intercepted private telephone consultations between defendant and her attorney before and during trial (Coplon v. United States ((D.C. Cir. 1951) 191 F.2d 749, 759), posed as a defense assistant, participated in client-attorney consultations and defense plans, and reported to the government matters relating to the pending trial (Caldwell v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1953) 205 F.2d 879, 880), and posed as a codefendant who was present at confidential attorney-client meetings wherein trial strategy was discussed, and reported all matters to his superiors. (Barber v. Municipal Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 742, 747 [157 Cal.Rptr. 658, 598 P.2d 818].) This is not our case. But whether or not the error is of constitutional dimensions, we do not agree that it is reversible per se.
Not all constitutional errors are reversible per se without regard to the evidence in the particular case. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065].) This was reiterated by the United States Supreme Court in subsequent cases, “And since Chapman, ‘we have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 681 [89 L.Ed.2d 674, 106 S.Ct. 1431]. That principle has been applied to a wide variety of constitutional errors. [Citations.]” (Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 576 [92 L.Ed.2d 460, 469, 106 S.Ct. 3101].)
Recognizing that some constitutional errors require reversal without regard to the evidence, Chapman gave among examples, a violation of the guarantee of counsel, citing Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 [9 L.Ed.2d 799, 83 S.Ct. 792, 93 A.L.R.2d 733]. But Gideon involved a complete denial of right to counsel.  In the instant case, in the context of defendant’s representation by counsel at the trial, there was no such denial, no denial of competent representation, no denial of due process, no denial of a fair trial. If any harm resulted from the judge’s questions, it could have only affected the policy upon which strict confidentiality of the attorney-client privilege is based, or created an inference from the fact that having previously known how defendant would testify, defense counsel did not ask Clarke if she ever had a drug transaction with defendant, an inference we cannot conclude, as urged by appellant, resulted in harm to his credibility. *584But the judge’s questions did not affect the attorney-client relationship between Tamborrino and defense counsel in this trial. We cannot equate this situation with Gideon, in which there was a complete denial of the right to counsel, or with the serious breach of confidentiality by the direct invasion by a government agent of the privacy of a defendant’s consultation with his attorney in Coplon, Caldwell and Barber.
In Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 681 [89 L.Ed.Zd 674, 684-685, 106 S.Ct. 1431], quoted in Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. at page 577 [92 L.Ed.2d at page 470], the Supreme Court said, “ ‘The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence [citation], and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error. Cf. R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 50 (1970) (“Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it”).’ ” The court concluded that the harmless-error analysis thus presupposes a trial at which the defendant represented by counsel, may present evidence and argument before an impartial judge and jury. (478 U.S. at pp. 578-579 [92 L.Ed.2d at p. 471].)
While defendant says the conduct of a judge must be scrutinized with care because his words carry great weight with the jury, he stops short of assailing Judge Rittenband’s integrity, and, indeed, such challenge would be unwarranted. Even defense counsel acknowledged this, “And your Hon- or, it seems to me very clear that while I know the court in the interests of seeking the truth asked the questions of Mr. Tamborrino in good faith, that yet, these questions were still in error.” Of course, the purpose of the court’s questions does not validate a violation of the attorney-client privilege, but in this case it does reflect, not on defendant’s credibility, as he urges here, but the fact that Clarke was not cross-examined about the drug deal before she was excused which gave her no opportunity to deny it. Though misguided, it was an attempt on the part of the judge to bring out the facts and to establish the truth. (People v. Rigney (1961) 55 Cal.2d 236, 241 [10 Cal.Rptr. 625, 359 P.2d 23, 98 A.L.R.2d 186]; People v. Swanson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1030 [176 Cal.Rptr. 915].) The record does not support appellant’s belated bare accusation in his reply brief that the judge “was attempting to assume the role of prosecutor.” He did not appear to ask the questions for either side; they were asked on neither direct nor cross-examination of defendant; he waited until the conclusion of defendant’s testimony. The questions do not imply either the judge’s disbelief in defendant’s testimony or his belief that defendant’s story was a recent fabrication.
*585Appellant makes no claim he was denied full opportunity to put on evidence and make argument to support his claim of innocence; and, he was tried by a fairly selected, impartial jury. Considering the entire record, we are persuaded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

D. Harmless Error

Clarke’s testimony is not barren of corroboration. In urging reversal because the prosecution’s case was weak, appellant largely ignores the ample circumstantial evidence of substantial significance pointing to his guilt, as he does the problems with his own testimony that bear on his credibility tending to weaken his “I was framed” argument.
It was not disputed that a robbery occurred. The issue at trial was one of identity. But it is not true, as urged by appellant, that the jury had to resolve the issue by accepting either his testimony or that of Clarke. It is true the jury could have accepted his simple denial of participation in the robbery, but she at no time accused him of being one of the robbers. The bulk of his testimony related to a narcotics sale. He claimed he sold her “bunk” cocaine for $1,600 which she paid him in $100 bills she took from her jewelry box which he saw and might have accidentally touched. This, he argued, explained away the presence of his fingerprint on the jewelry box, and implied Clarke framed him to get even with him, in order to account for her identification of the license number of the Datsun, the camouflage hat in the car and the handgun he admitted belonged to him.
He claimed his stepbrother fathered a child born to Clarke’s brother-in-law’s sister; she readily testified that her brother-in-law has a sister who had a child by an Eddie Brown. However, there is no evidence that she had ever seen Eddie Brown, knew Eddie Brown or knew of any claimed relationship between defendant and Eddie Brown.
Assuming the jury accepted defendant’s testimony in this regard and that Clarke did know him and did have a cocaine transaction with him, it could reasonably believe that a short time thereafter, defendant returned to rob her of the $100 bills he knew she kept in her jewelry box, and either the distant family connection made her reluctant to point the finger at defendant, or fear accounted for her failure to identify a man who not only forced his way into her home and held a handgun to her head but drove around with a loaded .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun under the driver’s seat— indeed, someone to be reckoned with.
Clarke never accused defendant of having been one of the three men who entered her apartment and robbed her. She was adamant that she did not *586know defendant and had never seen him before. She made no in-court identification of him and said she was not able to identify defendant at the pretrial photo lineup. On the other hand, it seems only reasonable that if Clarke was trying to “set up” defendant, she would have readily identified him, particularly from the photo lineup.
Defendant did not testify he thought he was or was being framed by Clarke; he admitted Clarke never told him she was going to “get back” at him for selling her “bunk” cocaine, in fact, he said he had never talked to her again. And he never explained how she would know about the orange Datsun and identify the camouflage hat and loaded gun found in the car when he was arrested.
Appellant places great emphasis on his testimony that he knew Clarke through a distant family connection. Thus, it is curious that defendant previously made no such claim. While he denied to police any involvement in the robbery, he did not mention that he knew Clarke. It is also curious that between his first arrest and release, and his subsequent rearrest, he did not contact Clarke. Further, the only evidence that defendant knew Clarke through the Rogline family was his own testimony. One wonders why, among all of the Roglines he claimed to know, he did not call at least one of them to corroborate his testimony; any one of the Roglines mentioned could have verified his claim.
In addition to all of the evidence which connected defendant to the robbery—his possession of a Datsun with license number 1DHG983, an orange Datsun he used on numerous occasions, the type of distinctive hat worn by the robber who held the gun to Clarke’s head, found in the Datsun and his possession of a loaded handgun (he admitted was his) which looked like the gun pointed to her head—is his fingerprint on the jewelry box.  Fingerprint evidence is “ ‘the strongest evidence of identity, and is ordinarily sufficient alone to identify the defendant.’ (People v. Gardner (1969) 71 Cal.2d 843, 849 [79 Cal.Rptr. 743, 457 P.2d 575].)” (People v. Bailes (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 265, 282 [180 Cal.Rptr. 792].)  The jury was entitled to draw its own inferences as to how defendant’s print came to be on the box and when.
Defendant gave a false name to police when he was arrested and booked. He also admitted two prior felony convictions—two robberies, in 1975 and 1980 respectively.
Clarke told Officer Horn that the car in which the robbers had departed was a small two-door orange Datsun with license number 1DHG983. When defendant was arrested he was driving a blue four-door Datsun but with *587license number 1DHG983, the expiration tag on which had been tampered with in an effort to make the “2” in 1982 look like an “8” in 1988. However, he told police the car belonged to his girlfriend who also owned a two-door orange Datsun which he used on numerous occasions. The inference is reasonable under the circumstances, including the altered expiration tag, that defendant switched the license plate after the robbery.
All of the foregoing hardly portrays defendant as a witness of sterling credibility. Moreover, we cannot perceive, nor does appellant demonstrate how the violation of the attorney-client privilege here implied a challenge to his credibility which “severely prejudiced his trial.” He points to the jury’s request for a reading of his testimony, but on the record before us, we cannot speculate that this implied the jury believed it was a close case or it had some question about whom to believe.
Finally, it had to be obvious to the jury, from the very nature of the questions defense counsel asked Clarke on cross-examination and defendant on direct examination, and long before the judge ever questioned defendant, that defendant had told his counsel of his proposed testimony—that he knew Clarke and had a drug transaction with her. Had it been otherwise, defense counsel would have had no reason to ask Clarke questions that appeared to be irrelevant to the robbery—about $100 bills, the denomination of bills taken from her purse during the robbery and any reason she may have had to carry a $100 bill around with her. He could not have asked such questions had he not known in advance defendant’s testimony, for they were asked to support his defense that he had a drug deal with Clarke and she paid him in $100 bills she took from her jewelry box. He also asked Clarke at length about her relatives, at that time so foreign to the robbery as to evoke a comment of immateriality. But it is clear, after defendant’s testimony, that his counsel had no purpose to ask Clarke such questions except to bolster his client’s defense. In this regard, defense counsel could have drawn the kind of testimony he did from Clarke only if he had been given the information by defendant sometime before. And he was careful in his trial strategy. He asked Clarke the details of her brother-in-law’s family but did not ask her if she knew or had ever seen Eddie Brown or if she knew of any relationship between him and defendant, and he did not ask her if she ever had a drug deal with defendant. Further, he did not call any of the Roglines to support defendant’s testimony. It is readily apparent that the court’s questions of defendant did not tell the jury anything it did not already know, as it was clear long before then that defendant had told defense counsel his story; and the jury did not need a violation of the attorney-client privilege to tell them that as a matter of trial strategy, defense counsel had not questioned Clarke about the drug deal and that in any case, it was not his responsibility to do so.
*588Appellant has not persuaded us of any harm resulting to his credibility. A careful reading of the trial testimony convinces us that defendant’s case was lost because of the strength and persuasiveness of the People’s evidence, and the weakness of his own uncorroborated testimony.
II
Admission of Prior Felony Convictions No Abuse of Discretion
Two prior felony convictions, both robberies, in 1975 and 1980, were admitted in evidence for purpose of impeachment.  “Under Castro the trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude prior convictions for impeachment purposes, and must exercise that discretion on motion of the defendant. The discretion is as broad as necessary to deal with the great variety of factual situations in which the issue arises, and in most instances the appellate courts will uphold its exercise whether the conviction is admitted or excluded.” (People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 387, 389 [228 Cal.Rptr. 899, 722 P.2d 173].)
The factors relevant to any application of Evidence Code section 352, and those the trial court should consider in exercising its discretion are found in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1]. They include the relationship between the prior felony conviction and credibility; nearness or remoteness in time of the prior felony to the present offense; similarity of the prior felony to the crime for which the accused is on trial; and what the effect would be if defendant elects not to testify. (P. 453.) Other circumstances of the case that may be relevant to the issue may also be taken into account. (People v. Collins, supra, 42 Cal.3d 378, 391-392.)  It cannot be denied on the record before us that the court exercised its discretion and indulged in the weighing process under section 352. However, appellant contends that the record does not, but must, include its reasoning process and affirmatively show that the trial court did in fact weigh prejudice against probative value under the statute. (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 25 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) The following tells us defendant’s position is not well taken.
A Beagle (People v. Beagle, supra, 6 Cal. 3d 441) motion was informally discussed in chambers, defense counsel cited cases upon which he relied, and the court read and considered them. Later in the trial, counsel formally moved to exclude the two felony convictions, again citing Beagle, supra, People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 [211 Cal.Rptr. 719, 696 P.2d 111] and People v. Collins, supra, 42 Cal.3d 378. He pointed specifically to the factors in Beagle “that the court should consider in using its discretion”: the prior *589must reflect on honesty and integrity, which he did not contest; remoteness in time, directed to the 1975 robbery, on the theory that if one is able to stay out of trouble for that period of time, it should not be used; conduct similar to or the same as that for which accused is being tried, and here the offenses are identical; and, reminding the court of its duty under section 352, Evidence Code, to weigh and balance the Beagle factors in making its decision, the effect if defendant elects not to testify. Defense counsel pointed out that defendant may be the sole defense witness, and reminded the court that it has the discretion to exclude the priors because of prejudice to defendant.
In response, the prosecutor reemphasized the discretion the court has in determining whether to exclude the prior convictions. He argued on the last issue that defendant should not be allowed to blackmail the court; as to remoteness, that this defendant has not been “problem free or offense free for several years”; and on the issues of identical conduct, that there is no known issue of identical conduct, that there are no known prior felony convictions against Tamborrino the prosecution could use other than the two robberies.
The court participated in the rather lengthy discussion asking various questions, then said, “I have seriously considered under 352 whether or not to allow impeachment of the defendant, if he takes the stand, of these priors which have been alleged against him. []j] I think in view of all of the circumstances in this case it is highly relevant.”
One cannot read the foregoing exchange without concluding that, indeed, the court was aware it had discretion to exclude the two prior robbery convictions, and it exercised that discretion; was aware of the Beagle factors and that it had to consider them, and did so; was aware it had to engage in a balancing process under Evidence Code section 352 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence of the two prior felony convictions is substantially outweighed by the possibility that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice, and did so. Although the court did not engage in a formal on-the-record evaluation of the factors affecting the weighing process, and Green does not so require, there can be no doubt that its conclusion was the result of a weighing process. (People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 453 [208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207].) Here, the trial court furnished us with a record necessary for meaningful review of appellant’s claim of abuse of discretion and to ensure that the ruling on the motion was the product of a mature and careful reflection on its part which, after all, is the reason for requiring an affirmative showing that the trial court did in fact weigh prejudice against probative value. (People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910, 924 [218 Cal.Rptr. 572, 705 P.2d 1248]; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 25 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].)
*590There is manifest no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Defendant’s credibility would be the crucial issue for the People as well as for the defendant if he took the stand and denied the robbery or gave an explanation for the presence of his fingerprint on Clarke’s jewelry box. There were no eyewitnesses to the robbery except Clarke who was unable to identify defendant. The priors would be highly probative on the issue of defendant’s credibility. (People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 59, 66 [215 Cal.Rptr. 716].)
If a prior felony conviction has been followed by a legally blameless life, remoteness is important. (People v. Beagle, supra, 6 Cal.3d 441, 453.) Thus, the court may consider defendant’s conduct subsequent to the prior conviction. (People v. Massey (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 819, 825 [237 Cal.Rptr. 734]; People v. Burns (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 734, 737, 739 [234 Cal.Rptr. 547]; People v. Dillingham (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 688, 695 [231 Cal.Rptr. 20].) Defendant was sentenced to state prison on the 1975 robbery and discharged from parole on September 27, 1979; in 1980 he was convicted of another robbery, and of receiving stolen property. That defendant did not get into trouble with the law between convictions after 1975, seems to be because he was incarcerated most of that time.
While before passage of Proposition 8, past offenses similar or identical to the offense on trial were excluded, now the rule of exclusion on this ground is no longer inflexible (People v. Foreman (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 175, 180 [219 Cal.Rptr. 759], quoting People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 301, 312). As for their potential prejudicial impact, it is true that they were identical to the crime charged, but that fact no longer compels their exclusion. (People v. Dillingham, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d 688, 695; People v. Stewart, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d 59, 66.) Defendant has a rather substantial criminal record dating from 1969, but because several of the serious crimes were converted to misdemeanors, no other prior felony convictions were available for impeachment.1 (See People v. Foreman, supra, 174 Cal.App.3d 175, 182.) “No . . . defendant who elects to testify in his own behalf is entitled to a false aura of veracity.” (See People v. Beagle, supra, 6 Cal.3d 441, 453.).
We note that the court gave a limiting instruction (CALJIC No. 2.23) that a witness’s prior convictions can only be considered for the purpose of *591determining his credibility. We are also aware that defendant used the two prior robbery convictions to his benefit by testifying that, as far as he knew, Clarke knew of these convictions, and argued that because of this she knew she could and did “set him up” for another robbery charge.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
Woods (Fred), J., concurred.

 1969 Burglary (California Youth Authority commitment).
1974 Parole violation after escape; discharged October 30, 1975.
1975 Robbery (state prison); paroled 1978, discharged 1979.
1980 Receiving stolen property (county jail).
1980 Robbery (armed) (state prison); paroled 1984, discharged 1985.
1986 False representation of identity to police officer (county jail).
1986 Disorderly conduct (county jail).