People v. Westerfield
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 4/10/19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
DAVID ALAN WESTERFIELD,
Defendant and Appellant.
S112691
San Diego County Superior Court SCD165805
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
THE COURT:
The opinion in this matter filed on February 4, 2019, and appearing at 6 Cal.5th 632, is modified as follows: 1. In the first paragraph on page 684, the sentence reading, “We further conclude defendant failed to preserve the claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance, although we would find no error in any event” is modified to read: We further conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance.
1 2. On page 690, the first two paragraphs and the first sentence of the third paragraph are deleted. A new sentence is added at the beginning of the third paragraph, reading: There was no abuse of discretion in this case. 3. In the final paragraph on page 694, the sentence reading, “Watkins agreed, but noted that there were several images that were ‘borderline’ as to the subject’s age, and he did not include those in the 85 he deemed questionable” is modified to read: Watkins agreed, but noted that there were several images that were “borderline” as to the subject’s age, and he gave defendant “the benefit of the doubt” as to those images.
This modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Westerfield S112691 · 2019-02-04