How have the courts treated the issue of insufficient evidence?

^11. Defendant's heading for the pertinent section in his brief states that he was denied due process and a fair trial because the evidence was insufficient. In his introduction, he argued that the conviction based on insufficient evidence violates the double jeopardy provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Defendant has cited no case law holding that a conviction based on insufficient evidence violates double jeopardy provisions, and he makes no argument in support of this claim. Accordingly, we do not consider the double jeopardy claim. Since we hold that "a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the due process clause of the United States Constitution is satisfied [citation] as is the due process clause of article I, section 15 of the California Constitution." (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690.)

^12. Defendant's sentencing memorandum does assume that the prior conviction has been established. That memorandum, however, was filed almost two months after the relevant hearing. At most it represents defense counsel's fallible memory of what occurred during the proceedings. It is not itself an admission and cannot serve as a substitute for a reporter's transcript of an admission.

^13. People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).