People v. Thompson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY PAUL THOMPSON, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)

Date published: Sep 7, 2011

C060409 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 7, 2011)

Opinion

C060409 Super. Ct. No. CRF066681

09-07-2011

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY PAUL THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant.

HULL

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 23, 2011, be modified as follows:

1. On page 11, replace the paragraph commencing "Given this overwhelming evidence," to read:

Given this overwhelming evidence, a result more favorable to defendant would not have been likely even if the challenged evidence had been excluded. (People v. Watson

(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).)And because the erroneously admitted evidence did not affect the verdict, the error was likewise harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711] (Chapman).
2. On page 12, at the sentence beginning "As described above," replace the remaining paragraph to read:
As described above, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming and whether analyzed under the standards of Watson or Chapman the result is the same: there was no prejudice. Defendant's claims to the contrary are unpersuasive.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

HULL, Acting P. J.

ROBIE, J.

BUTZ, J.