From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holmes

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta
Apr 7, 2008
No. C053259 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM ZEKE HOLMES, Defendant and Appellant. C053259 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Shasta April 7, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 03F29

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

SCOTLAND, P.J., SIMS, J., NICHOLSON, J.

THE COURT:

The opinion filed March 17, 2008, in the above cause is modified in the following respects:

On page 22, at the end of the first full paragraph, insert a footnote to read:

Defendant also contends that the instructional error violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, requiring prejudice analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L.Ed.2d 705] (Chapman). Even assuming that Chapman applies, the error is still harmless for the reasons stated above.

On page 24, at the end of the first full paragraph, insert a footnote to read:

Defendant also contends that the instructional error violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, requiring prejudice analysis under Chapman, supra. We have already explained that we do not think the instruction given was erroneous. But even if it was, the error is harmless under Chapman for the reasons explained above.

This modification does not change the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.


Summaries of

People v. Holmes

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta
Apr 7, 2008
No. C053259 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM ZEKE HOLMES, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta

Date published: Apr 7, 2008

Citations

No. C053259 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2008)