Does the mandatory appellate provision pertaining to capital cases not serve as the predicate for a defense of prior jeopardy?

People v. Quicke, Supra, is prima facie authority for the proposition that the mandatory appellate provision pertaining to capital cases does not serve as the predicate for a defense of prior jeopardy.

We conclude that the striking of the pleas of prior conviction and prior jeopardy was not error. At oral argument, respective counsel for each of the appellants conceded that the prosecution's evidence was substantially the same in the second trial as it was in the first. There is nothing to show that there is any factual conflict attending this question. Therefore, the matter was properly determined as a matter of law. (People v. Ramirez (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 660, 670, 104 Cal.Rptr. 102.)

Page 133