as-applied constitutional challenge in California

2019Absent ambiguity, we see no need, nor is it proper, to delve into legislative intent suggested by uncodified language outside the body of the statute. ( Allen , supra , 21 Cal.4th at pp. 860-861, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 279 , 984 P.2d 486 .) Faced, as we are, with an as-applied constitutional challenge to IDT decisionmaking that goes beyond "routine, day-to-day" medical treatment, we believe there is good reason to depart from the interpretation of section 1418.8 adopted in Rains on this specific point, while otherwise following its holding. ( Lucent , supra , 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 35 , 193 Cal.Rptr.3d

2019Absent ambiguity, we see no need, nor is it proper, to delve into legislative intent suggested by uncodified language outside the body of the statute. ( Allen, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 860-861.) Faced, as we are, with an as-applied constitutional challenge to IDT decisionmaking that goes beyond "routine, day-to-day" medical treatment, we believe there is good reason to depart from the interpretation of section 1418.8 adopted in Rains on this specific point, while otherwise following its holding. ( Lucent, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 35 .) As for the second step in petitioners' statutory inter

2019Absent ambiguity, we see no need, nor is it proper, to delve into legislative intent suggested by uncodified language outside the body of the statute. ( Allen , supra , 21 Cal.4th at pp. 860-861, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 279 , 984 P.2d 486 .) Faced, as we are, with an as-applied constitutional challenge to IDT decisionmaking that goes beyond "routine, day-to-day" medical treatment, we believe there is good reason to depart from the interpretation of section 1418.8 adopted in Rains on this specific point, while otherwise following its holding. ( Lucent , supra , 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 35 , 193 Cal.Rptr.3d

2019Absent ambiguity, we see no need, nor is it proper, to delve into legislative intent suggested by uncodified language outside the body of the statute. ( Allen , supra , 21 Cal.4th at pp. 860-861, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 279 , 984 P.2d 486 .) Faced, as we are, with an as-applied constitutional challenge to IDT decisionmaking that goes beyond "routine, day-to-day" medical treatment, we believe there is good reason to depart from the interpretation of section 1418.8 adopted in Rains on this specific point, while otherwise following its holding. ( Lucent , supra , 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 35 , 193 Cal.Rptr.3d

2025(Fenn, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1484 .) 9 efforts to arrange visitation and effectively places a burden on a parent to disprove a presumption that nonparental visitation is in his or her child’s best interests.” (Punsly, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1107 .) “When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the trial court’s findings on historical facts that are supported by substantial evidence, and then independently review the constitutionality of the statute under those facts.” (People v. Mitchell (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1378 .) “To overcome the presumpti

2016(See Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109 , 1127–1130.)” (People v. Mitchell (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1378 .) “An as applied challenge may seek . . . relief from a specific application of a facially valid statute or ordinance to an individual or class of individuals who are under allegedly impermissible present restraint or disability as a result of the manner or circumstances in which the statute or ordinance has been applied . . . .” (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 .) B.

2024Appealability The as-applied constitutional challenge Seumanu asks us to address cannot be fairly characterized as the “successiveness question itself” (Friend I, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 746 ), which is the discrete issue the Friend I court held was appealable under section 1509.1(c) where capital habeas claims are dismissed for successiveness.

2024Appealability The as-applied constitutional challenge Seumanu asks us to address cannot be fairly characterized as the “successiveness question itself” (Friend I, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 746 ), which is the discrete issue the Friend I court held was appealable under section 1509.1(c) where capital habeas claims are dismissed for successiveness.

2019Drabick, supra , 200 Cal.App.3d 185 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 840 , declined to adopt a similarly circumscribed construction of Probate Code section 2355 in a conservatorship case, holding that, "by necessary implication, [it] gives the conservator power to withhold or withdraw consent to medical treatment under appropriate circumstances.

2019Drabick, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 185 , declined to adopt a similarly circumscribed construction of Probate Code section 2355 in a conservatorship case, holding that, "by necessary implication, [it] gives the conservator power to withhold or withdraw consent to medical treatment under appropriate circumstances.

2019(Alviso v. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Dept. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 198, 204 .) On the other hand, an as-applied challenge “contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular case . . . to determine the circumstances in which the statute . . . has been applied and to consider whether in those particular circumstances the application deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protected right.” (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 .) When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the superior court’s findings on historical facts that are suppo

2019(Alviso v. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Dept. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 198, 204 .) On the other hand, an as-applied challenge “contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular case . . . to determine the circumstances in which the statute . . . has been applied and to consider whether in those particular circumstances the application deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protected right.” (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 .) When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the superior court’s findings on historical facts that are suppo

2019(C.M. v. M.C. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1198 ; Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1127-1130 .) D.

2019(C.M. v. M.C. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1198 ; Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1127-1130 .) D.

2016“Forfeiture is particularly appropriate where resolution of factual issues is necessary to determine whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offender’s culpability.” (People v. Gonzalez (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1296 , 1313.) “Since the determination of the applicability of Dillon in a particular case is fact specific, the issue must be raised in the trial court.” (People v. DeJesus (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1, 27 .) Whitehead also contends, however, that the statutory scheme of section 190.2 is unconstitutional because it mandates a LWOP sentence where the penalty sought is not death

2015“Forfeiture is particularly appropriate where resolution of factual issues is necessary to determine whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offender’s culpability.” (People v. Gonzalez (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1296 , 1313.) “Since the determination of the applicability of Dillon in a particular case is fact specific, the issue must be raised in the trial court.” (People v. DeJesus (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1, 27 .) Whitehead also contends, however, that the statutory scheme of section 190.2 is unconstitutional because it mandates a LWOP sentence where the penalty sought is not death

2025As-applied Challenge to Count 1 In addition to his facial challenge, defendant claims his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon is unconstitutional as applied to him.8 (See Tobe, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1084 [an as-applied constitutional challenge requires determining whether “a specific application of a facially valid statute 7 Here, we observe that defendant’s reliance on Smith v. Cahoon (1931) 283 U.S. 553 is misplaced.

2025(Fenn, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1484 .) 9 efforts to arrange visitation and effectively places a burden on a parent to disprove a presumption that nonparental visitation is in his or her child’s best interests.” (Punsly, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1107 .) “When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the trial court’s findings on historical facts that are supported by substantial evidence, and then independently review the constitutionality of the statute under those facts.” (People v. Mitchell (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1378 .) “To overcome the presumpti

2025(Fenn, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1484 .) 9 efforts to arrange visitation and effectively places a burden on a parent to disprove a presumption that nonparental visitation is in his or her child’s best interests.” (Punsly, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1107 .) “When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the trial court’s findings on historical facts that are supported by substantial evidence, and then independently review the constitutionality of the statute under those facts.” (People v. Mitchell (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1378 .) “To overcome the presumpti

2025The court concluded “the statutory prohibition of deriving support from the earnings of a known prostitute is related to a proper legislative goal, and hence, is constitutional.” (Grant, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 114 .) The “Legislature may well have reasoned that (a) a person deriving support from the earnings of a known prostitute would know or would reasonably be expected to know the source of the funds [citation]; and (b) criminal liability could be avoided only if a defendant demonstrated either a lack of knowledge that the person was a prostitute, the funds were not derived from acts

2025Remand “We have the power to modify a probation condition to render the condition constitutional.” (Turner, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1436 .) However, while the modification to condition No. 29 can be accomplished fairly straightforwardly by adding a scienter requirement that Small not knowingly associate with minors (ibid.), a modification to condition No. 32 is not so readily effected.

2025In doing so, Brown again relies on Grant, supra. As discussed above, however, that case involved a facial constitutional overbreadth challenge to section 266h, on the grounds it: (1) deprives a defendant “of his right of association by prohibiting 31. cohabitation with a known prostitute;” and (2) outlaws “ ‘receiving any amount of money, for any reason, from a person they know to be a prostitute, regardless of whether [the defendant] knows the source of the funds’ or has ‘the purpose to perpetuate the prostitution’ ” (Grant, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 112 .) Thus, the case had nothing to do

2025In doing so, Brown again relies on Grant, supra. As discussed above, however, that case involved a facial constitutional overbreadth challenge to section 266h, on the grounds it: (1) deprives a defendant “of his right of association by prohibiting 31. cohabitation with a known prostitute;” and (2) outlaws “ ‘receiving any amount of money, for any reason, from a person they know to be a prostitute, regardless of whether [the defendant] knows the source of the funds’ or has ‘the purpose to perpetuate the prostitution’ ” (Grant, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 112 .) Thus, the case had nothing to do

2025(Fenn, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1484 .) 9 efforts to arrange visitation and effectively places a burden on a parent to disprove a presumption that nonparental visitation is in his or her child’s best interests.” (Punsly, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1107 .) “When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the trial court’s findings on historical facts that are supported by substantial evidence, and then independently review the constitutionality of the statute under those facts.” (People v. Mitchell (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1378 .) “To overcome the presumpti

2025(People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934 , 946 [“An as-applied constitutional challenge is forfeited unless previously raised”].) Even if preserved, appellant’s position rests on “a ‘constitutional defect [that] may be correctable only by examining factual findings in the record or remanding to the trial court for further findings’ ” which is “not appropriately raised for the first time on appeal.” (Zachary H. v. Teri A. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1136 , 1144, citing In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887 .) Specifically, appellant argues the firearm restrictions were unconstitutional in his

2023(Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887 ; People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934 , 946 (Patton) [“An as-applied constitutional challenge is forfeited unless previously raised.”].) The forfeiture rule however does not apply “where a party raises a facial challenge to a condition of probation as constitutionally vague or overbroad that can be resolved without reference to the sentencing record in a particular case.” (In re L.O., supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 711 ; Sheena K., at p. 887.) Our Supreme Court has held that this exception “does not apply in every case in which a probation condition

2021(See In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 885, 888-889; Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742 .) First, Gurley does not properly present his facial challenge under a separate heading.

2021The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee to the citizen of a state any particular form or method of procedure.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Bona (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 511, 520 .) An as-applied challenge “ ‘contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular case . . . to determine the circumstances in which the statute . . . has been applied and to consider whether in those particular circumstances the application deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protected right.’ [Citation.] When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the su

2021The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee to the citizen of a state any particular form or method of procedure.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Bona (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 511, 520 .) An as-applied challenge “ ‘contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular case . . . to determine the circumstances in which the statute . . . has been applied and to consider whether in those particular circumstances the application deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protected right.’ [Citation.] When reviewing an as-applied constitutional challenge on appeal, we defer to the su