People v. Barnett (1998)

See California v. Barnett, 17 Cal.4th 1044 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 , 464 (1998) (“[A] kidnapping does not terminate until the victim is released or otherwise disposed of and the kidnapper reaches a place of temporary safety.”).

See ECF No. 7 397-1, pg. 24; People v. Barnett, 17 Cal. 4th 1044, 1069 (1998).

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1092 (Barnett) [“ ‘disillusion[ment]’ ” with counsel did not amount to “such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation was ‘likely to result’ ”]; Molina, supra, at p. 549 [“[D]issatisfaction with an attorney’s performance which is [legally] adequate . . . is not a basis on which a continuance to permit a substitution of attorneys must be granted.”].) “The resolution of the issue depends upon the circumstances of…

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 (Barnett) [“As this contention is perfunctorily asserted without any analysis or argument in support, we reject it as not properly raised”].) 3.

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1159 (Barnett) [finding that once the forcible movement of a person commences, the kidnapping is ongoing and continues “until such time as the kidnapper releases or otherwise disposes of the victim and has reached a place of temporary safety. . . .”].) Thus, there would be no basis for an instruction on false imprisonment from the subsequent movement of the car into the alley. 60 Respondent acknowledges that appellant cannot be …

(Jackson, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 690 [request made in the middle of jury voir dire untimely]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1105 (Barnett) [request made during trial untimely].) Based upon these authorities,4 the trial court did not err in finding defendant’s request to be untimely and denial of that request is not reversible per se. 2.

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 ; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 .) DISPOSITION The trial court’s order denying defendant’s section 1172.1 petition is affirmed. /S/ MAURO, J.

(See, e.g., People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1131 [rejecting claim based on late discovery where defendant did not seek a continuance]; People v. Sanchez (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 460, 474, fn. 8 [alleged Brady error deemed harmless where prosecution disclosed evidence during trial and defense failed to request a continuance].) “Where there has been a failure of discovery the normal remedy is not dismissal or the suppression of evidence, but a continuance to enable the …

As our Supreme Court has held time and again, where a jury is properly instructed on first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder and heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, the jury’s conviction of the crime of first degree premeditated murder renders harmless any error in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter because the “jury[’s] reject[ion of] the lesser options” available to it means “there is no reasonable probabi…

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1119 [no prejudicial error in admitting motive evidence when “the court’s instructions minimized any danger that the jury might rely upon [said evidence] for an improper purpose”].) Contrary to defendant’s argument, CALCRIM No. 375 properly instructed the jury as to the limited use of the evidence of possible uncharged offenses and minimized any danger that the jury would consider that evidence to infer bad character or a propensity…

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn.37 [“As this contention is perfunctorily asserted without any analysis or argument in support, we reject it as not properly raised”].) We have examined the entire record of the proceedings and are satisfied Thompson’s attorney complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist.

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 .) 10 judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable.

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1159 [kidnapping continues until the victim is released or is otherwise disposed of and reaches a place of “temporary safety”].) Defendant continued to make criminal threats during the kidnapping.

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1166-1167 [the defendant failed to show prejudice from defense counsel’s claimed incompetence considering the strong evidence against him].) Therefore, Encinas’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails.

(See People v. Jandres (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 340, 362 [false imprisonment is a lesser included offense of kidnapping]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1159 [kidnaping is a continuing offense so long as the detention continues].) Where there was a single abduction followed by a continuous period of detention, a defendant cannot be convicted of two counts of false imprisonment.

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1166 [the defendant failed to show that prejudice resulted from defense counsel’s alleged incompetence in failing to argue for the defendant’s innocence and, thus, failed to establish claim of ineffective assistance of counsel considering the strong evidence against him].) G testified defendant approached her, touched her breasts, and kissed her several times on the lips for about two minutes.

(Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th at 27 [upholding the denial of the defendant’s Faretta motion on the independent ground that the request was equivocal]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1109-1110 [“we reject defendant’s claim that the court erred in denying his subsequent Faretta and Marsden motion . . . .

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1118 [“When a trial court overrules a defendant’s objections that evidence is . . . unduly prejudicial . . . , we review the rulings for abuse of discretion.”]; see Zuniga v. Alexandria Care Center, LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 871 , 883-884.) A judgment may be reversed for the erroneous admission of evidence only if the error “resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (Evid.

He’s not representing me right.” The trial court denied the Marsden motion. 7 B “Marsden motions are subject to the following well-established rules. ‘ “ ‘When a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of the attorney’s inadequate performance. [Citation.] A defendant is entitled to…

Code, §] 352”]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1130 [relevancy objection did not preserve for review claim under 8 Evid.

(See People v. Jandres (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 340, 362 [false imprisonment is a lesser included offense of kidnapping]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1159 [kidnaping is a continuing offense so long as the detention continues].) Where there was a single abduction followed by a continuous period of detention, a defendant cannot be convicted of two counts of false imprisonment.

(People v. Chhoun, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 30 ; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1119 [no prejudicial error in admitting motive evidence where, inter alia, “the court’s instructions minimized any danger that the jury might rely upon [said evidence] for an improper purpose”].) Further, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352, defendant’s constitutional claims also fail.

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1126 (Barnett); § 1050, subd. (e).) When a defendant makes a request for a continuance in the midst of trial, the court “ ‘must consider not only the benefit which the moving party anticipates but also the likelihood that such benefit will result, the burden on other witnesses, jurors, and the court, and, above all, whether substantial justice will be accomplished or defeated by a granting of the motion.’ ” (People v. 3 On appea…

(People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 138 [objections based on relevance or foundation “were insufficient to preserve for appeal the claim that the trial court should have excluded the evidence under Evidence Code section 352”]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1130 [relevancy objection did not preserve for review claim under Evidence Code section 352].) Even if Govan had not forfeited this contention, it would not have been an abuse of discretion for the trial co…

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1085 [denial of Marsden motion]; In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 605 [denial of request for continuance].) Whether we view mother’s appeal as challenging the denial of the continuance or the denial of a Marsden hearing, or both, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion.

(See, e.g., People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1157 [likelihood prosecutor’s comment caused misunderstanding mitigated by trial court’s admonishments to follow the law and instructions given by the court]; see generally People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116, 1167 .) Nor did the trial court’s statement amount to a federal constitutional violation that deprived Elias of his right to a fair trial.

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1133 [reversal not required for prosecutorial misconduct unless it is reasonably probable result would have been favorable in absence of misconduct].) The prosecutor’s statements here were brief and generic.

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107 [an appellate court conducts a fair reading of the record]; People v. Bolian (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422 [same].) The trial court accordingly did not contradict its June 2021 discussion of and findings regarding the physical abuse allegations, as wife asserts.

(In re M.S. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1242 , 1251, fn. 4 [information not presented in the juvenile court may not be considered on appeal]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1183 [“[O]ur review on a direct appeal is limited to the appellate record”].) In C.H.’s estimation, his performance on probation was more than adequate.

(Ibid., citing People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1152 [explaining that the flight instruction, as given, “adequately conveyed the concept that if flight was found, the jury was permitted to consider alternative explanations for that flight other than [the] defendant’s consciousness of guilt”]; see also Bradford, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1055 [same].) The instruction in this case (CALCRIM No. 372), like the substantially similar instructions in Navarette and its predec…

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1095 [observing that the duty to inquire articulated in Groce has been called into question by at least one court].) But, assuming such a duty does exist, it was not violated in this case.

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1113 [trial court uniquely situated to evaluate defendant’s renewed IAC claims based on previous extensive inquiries and observations of counsel’s performance throughout entire trial].) 112 Kocontes argues the trial court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the IAC claims and erroneously failed to question Gragg.

(See People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 690 [“erroneous failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not prejudicial if ‘it is possible to determine that … the factual question posed by the omitted instruction was necessarily resolved adversely to the defendant under other, properly given instructions’ ”]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1155 [similar].) Defendant argues that because the jury did not find him guilty on all counts, it shows their selectiv…

(Cf. People v. Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 627 ; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1162 [“Significantly, the evidence established [the appellant] never freed or relinquished control over [the victim] from the time of the torture to the time of the murder.

A kidnapping “continues until . . . the kidnapper releases or otherwise disposes of the victim and has reached a place of temporary safety.” (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1159 (Barnett).) Accordingly, the kidnapping was ongoing when defendant entered the truck.

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1130 [objection asserting only relevancy without further amplification will not preserve an Evidence Code section 352 claim on appeal].) However, “counsel’s lack of express reference to Evidence Code section 352 is not itself fatal to defendant’s claim. . . .” (People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1014-1015 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) On the record before us, ho…

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1181-1182 [the failure to support claim with adequate argument forfeits the claim as not properly raised]; Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99 [“Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, we consider the issues waived”].) 9 perpetrator, (b) the aider and abettor’s mens rea—knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s unlawful intent and an intent to…

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1087 [defendant’s single reference to “ ‘mak[ing] a motion to proceed pro se’ ” did not constitute an unequivocal assertion of the right to self-representation when he did not return to the issue with an actual request to represent himself and instead requested new counsel].) Nor was he foreclosed from doing so.

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1156 [first degree murder verdict indicated jury rejected claim that intoxication interfered with ability to form the requisite mental states, so lack of involuntary intoxication instruction was harmless]; People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 276 [conviction on first degree murder instead of second 21 degree murder showed the omission of instruction on involuntary manslaughter was harmless].) Hernandez’s evidence of self-defen…

(Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1009 .) An attorney’s decision with respect to how to question a witness is afforded substantial deference, and “ ‘[t]he failure to impeach a witness or to object to evidence are matters which usually involve tactical decisions on counsel’s part and seldom establish a counsel’s incompetence.’ ” (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1140 (Barnett).) Trial counsel may have made the tactical decision not to impeach A.C. because he believed tha…

(Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1037 ; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1125-1126 (Barnett).) “When a continuance is sought to secure the attendance of a witness, the defendant must establish ‘he[or she] had exercised due diligence to secure the witness’s attendance, that the witness’s expected testimony was material and not cumulative, that the testimony could be obtained within a reasonable time, and that the facts to which the witness would testify could not ot…

But the decision must always be based on what has happened in the past.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694-695 .) “Denials of Marsden motions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1085 (Barnett); People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 230 , overruled on other grounds as stated in People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 834 .) “Denial ‘is not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a fail…

(Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 60 .) The requirement that the offense be “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang,” ensures that the enhancement applies only to offenses that are “gang-related.” (Albillar, at pp. 66-68.) 6 This defect also forfeits both issues, because minor fails to include a separate heading challenging the gang-related prong of the statute (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Consoli…

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 [contention perfunctorily asserted without analysis or argument rejected as not properly raised]; People v. Gonzalez (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1543, fn. 3 [argument waived where asserted without pertinent argument or citation to applicable authority]; People v. Harper (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1419, fn. 4 .) 15 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

(See People v. Barnett (1998) 27 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 , 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 .) Appellate issues may 28 not be raised in a perfunctory or conclusory manner.

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1145 (Barnett); see also People v. Cole (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 452, 484 [“ ‘The threshold is not high.’ ”].) A mistake of fact defense differs based on whether the charged crime requires general intent, specific intent or knowledge of a requisite fact.

(People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 790, fn. 6 ; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 .) “The Fifth Amendment, in relevant part, provides that no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ It has long been held that this prohibition not only permits a person to refuse to testify against himself at a criminal trial in which he is a defendant, but also ‘privileges him not to answer official 32 questions put to him i…

(People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1126 [ ].)‖ (People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 450 (Doolin); see also People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 1003 [―An important factor for a trial court to consider is whether a continuance would be useful. . . . [T]o demonstrate the usefulness of a continuance[,] a party must show both the materiality of the evidence necessitating the continuance and that such evidence could be obtained within a reasonable time‖], overruled …

(Cf. CAFCRIM No. 1863 [claim of right applies to obtaining “specific property” and “does not apply to . . . claims ... of an undetermined or disputed amount”].) Moreover, our Supreme Court has indicated the claim-of-right defense does not apply to situations involving sums representing an “unliquidated tort claim for personal injuries” or “a rough estimate of *233 a disputed debt.” (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1144, 1146 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ], c…

On the defendant’s appeal following his conviction, we rejected his challenge to the admission of this financial evidence, explaining that while evidence of poverty is generally inadmissible to prove a motive for robbery or theft, ”[o]nce the debtor-creditor relationship had been established between defendant and the victim, evidence that defendant had a number of other debts, some of which were in arrears, had substantial relevance to show the motive for the murder of defen…