The court had jurisdiction where the parties stipulated to the complaint being deemed an information. In his appeal from convictions for controlled substance offenses, appellant contended that the court had no jurisdiction to try him because the prosecutor had failed to file an information. (The parties had stipulated that the complaint could be deemed an information.) The appellate court rejected the argument. The judge here presided over the preliminary hearing and held appellant to answer. By stipulating to deem the complaint to be the same as the information, the parties did not attempt to confer jurisdiction by stipulation, but only stipulated to the fact of the existence of the document, upon which the judge could properly act. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence that appellant was unemployed and on welfare. Appellant also contended that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to object to evidence that appellant was unemployed and on welfare. The appellate court rejected the argument. The information was relevant to show appellant had a motive to sell drugs, and to rebut his asserted defense that the drugs were for his own use and were not for sale. The relevance clearly outweighed any risk of undue prejudice, and objections, if made, would have properly been overruled. The prosecutor’s comments were fair inferences from the evidence and therefore not misconduct. Appellant also contended that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that appellant placed a jacket with methamphetamine into his jail property. The court rejected that argument, finding that the comment was a fair inference from the evidence, and not an example of the prosecutor attesting to facts outside the record.