How have courts dealt with the issue of self-defense instruction in a murder case?

Relying on the decision in People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822 (Leeds), defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred during the sanity phase when it failed to give the jury a modified self-defense instruction and the error was prejudicial, entitling him to reversal of the sanity finding on the murder count. Alternatively, defendant argues that if we find no sua sponte instructional duty and instead determine it was the duty of defense counsel to request a pinpoint instruction on the issue, counsel's failure to do so constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant also claims the trial court erred in imposing a concurrent sentence for his arson conviction rather than staying the sentence under section 654, which prohibits multiple punishment for crimes committed pursuant to a single intent and objective. (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311-312 (Corpening).)