prima facie inquiry in California

2026(People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 450 .) The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6, subdivision (c) is “limited.” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971 .) The trial court takes the petitioner’s “ ‘ “factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if [their] factual allegations were proved.

2026Upon receipt of a petition that sets forth the required allegations, the trial court must conduct a prima facie analysis and hearing to determine the defendant's eligibility for relief. (§ 1172.6, subds. (b)(3) & (c); People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708 ; Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 957, 960.) If the defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, then the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if defendant is guilty of murder under sections 188 or 189 as amended by the changes to sections 188 or 189 made effective Janua

2026(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ; see also People v. Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043 , 1055 [record of conviction includes jury instructions].) The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6, subdivision (c) is “limited.” (Lewis, at p. 971.) The court “ ‘ “takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘[A] court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing

2026(People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 450 .) The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6, subdivision (c) is “limited.” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971 .) The trial court takes the petitioner’s “ ‘ “factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if [their] factual allegations were proved.

2025To establish a prima-facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, “the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” (Duren, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 364 ; Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 566 .) If the defendant establishes a prima facie case of s

2017Discussion A criminal defendant has a "right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the *19 community." ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 , 359, 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ( Duren ); see People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 1159, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which ju

2024(Lewis, at pp. 971–972.) However, Lewis cautions that although appellate opinions are generally considered to be part of the record of conviction, the prima facie bar was intentionally set very low; a trial court should not engage in “ ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ” (Id. at p. 972.) If appointment of counsel is improperly denied, we apply the harmless error test of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .

2024(People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 , 970–971 (Lewis).) However, the prima facie inquiry is limited and, at this stage of the proceedings, the court “should not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ” (Lewis, at p. 972.) If the trial court determines the petitioner has met his or her prima facie burden, “the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and to resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts.” (Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 853 ; accord, § 1172.6,

2026If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c); see Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 .) The trial court’s prima facie inquiry determines whether the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law.

2026If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c); see Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 .) The trial court’s prima facie inquiry determines whether the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law.

2025(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 , 309–310.) “However, if the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition. [Citations.] The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) 6.

2025(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 , 309–310.) “However, if the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition. [Citations.] The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) In determining whether the petition makes the necessary show

2017Discussion A criminal defendant has a "right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the *19 community." ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 , 359, 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ( Duren ); see People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 1159, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which ju

2017Discussion A criminal defendant has a "right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the *19 community." ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 , 359, 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ( Duren ); see People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 1159, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which ju

2013Step one requires the defendant to make a prima facie “ ‘showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ ” (Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 , quoting Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 93-94.) This prima facie requirement is satisfied “so long as the sum of the proffered facts gives ‘rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ ” ( Johnson, supra, at p. 169 , quoting Batson, supra, at p. 94 .) If the trial court determines the defendant has made a prima facie showing, “the ‘burden shifts to the State to explain adequately th

2011In this first stage of any Wheeler/Batson inquiry, the defendant must show that “ ‘the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ ” (Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 [ 162 L.Ed.2d 129 , 125 S.Ct. 2410 ], quoting Batson, supra, 476 U.S. 79, 96 ; accord, Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 280-281 .) To clarify, this is not a case in which, after a prima facie violation is found, the prosecution must offer permissible nondiscriminatory reasons for the strikes (i.e., the second stage of a Wheeler/Batson challenge).

2025(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 986, citing Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 846 ; see § 188, subd. (a)(3).) At the prima facie hearing of March 13, 2024, the trial court acknowledged defendant’s jury had been instructed regarding the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

2025(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 986, citing Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 846 ; see § 188, subd. (a)(3).) At the prima facie hearing of March 13, 2024, the trial court acknowledged defendant’s jury had been instructed regarding the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

2001(Bell); e.g., [People v.] Harris [(1984)] 36 Cal.3d [36,] 48-49 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 ].)” (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1159 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ].) “In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be *233 excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation i

2001(Bell); e.g., [People v.] Harris [(1984)] 36 Cal.3d [36,] 48-49 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 ].)” (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1159 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ].) “In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be *233 excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation i

2026On remand, the trial court must conduct further proceedings as are necessary to allow the City to lay the proper foundation for the assertion of the privilege, and for the People and/or Philips to demonstrate that the privilege does not apply or that a statutory exception exists. 9 Costco instructs that the party claiming the attorney-client privilege “has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citation.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie

2025Such a broad reading of Qaadir cannot be squared with established California Supreme Court precedent, which states “[t]he [attorney-client] privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 739 (Costco).) Rather, “the attorney-client privilege is a legislative creation, which courts have no power to limit by recognizing implied exceptions.” (Ibid.) Thus, it appears petitioner has stated a prima facie claim of privilege, and real p

2001To establish a prima facie violation of the right at issue, a defendant must show: (1) the assertedly excluded group is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) the group's representation in venires from which juries are selected is neither fair nor reasonable in relation to the number of such individuals in the community; and (3) the underrepresentation is due to "systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ; People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 580 , 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 816 , 967 P.2d 29 .) "

2001(People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 491 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ].)” (People v. Horton, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1088 .) As to appellant’s claim that he established a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, it is not disputed that the first prong is met in that African-Americans “are a cognizable group within the meaning of Duren . [Citation.]” (Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 526.) We address the adequacy of appellant’s showing as to the second and third prongs under Duren’s three-prong test.

2024(See In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584 , 592–593.) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) The juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case in deciding whether to grant a hearing on a petition under section 388.

2016(In re Jamika W. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1446 , 1450–1451; In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 592-594 .)The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.(Id. at p. 594.) A ruling on a section 388 petition is “committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuseofdiscretion is clearly established.” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 .) “Thus, we may not reverse unless the juv

2024“When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists.” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 639 .) On that party’s prima facie showing “that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential,’ or that an exception exists.” (Ibid.) A defend

2024We have engaged Andrea Kelly Smethurst, an outside, independent investigator to conduct an investigation into your claims of retaliation.” Independent of the Reiter declaration, these e-mails establish the preliminary facts sufficient to support a prima facie showing of privilege—specifically, that Smethurst “was an attorney hired by [Intuitive] to conduct an investigation of the charges of discrimination.” (Wellpoint, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 123 .) 4 In concluding that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding, we rely only on portions of the Reiter declaration the trial cou

2001(People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 491 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ].)” (People v. Horton, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1088 .) As to appellant’s claim that he established a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, it is not disputed that the first prong is met in that African-Americans “are a cognizable group within the meaning of Duren . [Citation.]” (Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 526.) We address the adequacy of appellant’s showing as to the second and third prongs under Duren’s three-prong test.

2001(People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 491 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ].)” (People v. Horton, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1088 .) As to appellant’s claim that he established a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, it is not disputed that the first prong is met in that African-Americans “are a cognizable group within the meaning of Duren . [Citation.]” (Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 526.) We address the adequacy of appellant’s showing as to the second and third prongs under Duren’s three-prong test.

2025(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 , 309–310.) “However, if the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition. [Citations.] The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) 6.

2025(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309-310 .) However, the prima facie requirement is not met if the allegations would fail to sustain a favorable decision even if they were found to be true at a hearing.

2025(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181 , 188–189.) A petition does not meet the prima facie standard unless facts alleged in the petition are supported by relevant evidence, and support a favorable decision on the petition.

2024(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189 .) A petition does not meet the prima facie standard unless the facts alleged in the petition, once supported by relevant evidence, would support a favorable decision on the petition.

2024(In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415 .) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 (Zachary G.).) Alternatively stated, a prima facie case is made on a section 388 petition if its 8 allegations show section 388’s two elements are supported by probable cause and need not show a probability of prevailing on the petition.

2022(In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415 (Jasmon O.).) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 (Zachary G.).) Alternatively stated, a prima facie case is made on a section 388 petition if its allegations show section 388’s two elements are supported by probable cause and need not show a probability of prevailing on the petition.

2024Like the analogous prima facie inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings, ‘ “the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. . . .” ’ [Citation.]” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Ibid.; see People v. Abarca (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d

2024Like the analogous prima facie inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings, ‘ “the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. . . .” ’ [Citation.]” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Ibid.; see People v. Abarca (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d

2026(Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2(a); § 1172.6, subd. (a).) Section 1172.6 “applies by its terms only to attempted murders based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539 , 548 (Coley).) If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c), (d)(1).) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section 117[2.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit fro

2026(Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2(a); § 1172.6, subd. (a).) Section 1172.6 “applies by its terms only to attempted murders based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539 , 548 (Coley).) If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c), (d)(1).) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section 117[2.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit fro

2023Misappropriation of Trade Secrets As summarized ante and as set forth in their opening brief, Plaintiffs contend they produced evidence of “three types of trade secrets: customer information (including names, preferences, and contact information), standard operating procedures, and vendor pricing.” A prima facie claim of misappropriation of trade secrets has three elements: “(1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret, (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the plaintiff’s trade secret through improper means, and (3) the defendant’s actions damaged the plaintiff.”22 (Sargent Fletcher, Inc.

2021(Frei v. Davey (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1512 .) A prima facie claim of misappropriation of trade secrets has three elements: “(1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret, (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the plaintiff’s trade secret through improper means, and (3) the defendant’s actions damaged the plaintiff.” (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1665 , citing Civ.

2023The burden of proof is on the petitioner.” (In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 423 .) “The parent seeking modification must ‘make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing. [Citation]’ [Citations.] There are two parts to the prima facie showing: The parent must demonstrate (1) a genuine change of circumstances or new evidence, and that (2) revoking the previous order would be in the best interests of the child[ ].” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 , italics added (Anthony W.).) “The prima facie requirement [for a hearing] is not me

2023(In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157 ; Anthony W., at p. 250.) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 806 .) In determining whether the petition makes the necessary showing, the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case.

2023The burden of proof is on the petitioner.” (In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 423 .) “The parent seeking modification must ‘make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing. [Citation]’ [Citations.] There are two parts to the prima facie showing: The parent must demonstrate (1) a genuine change of circumstances or new evidence, and that (2) revoking the previous order would be in the best interests of the child[ ].” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 , italics added (Anthony W.).) “The prima facie requirement [for a hearing] is not me

2021(In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 424, 432 ; In re Jeremy W. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1414 .) Nevertheless, the petition “may not be conclusory.” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 .) Specific allegations are required, and “[s]uccessful petitions have included declarations or other attachments which demonstrate the showing the petitioner will make at a hearing.” (Ibid.) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal

2025(Lewis, at p. 971.) In making this assessment, the trial court may consider the defendant’s record of conviction. ( Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 970–971.) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry . . . allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Id. at p. 971.) However, “the court should not make credibility determinations or engage in ‘factfinding 6 involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 974.) When a defendant’s conviction follows

2025Duran testified at the preliminary hearing that Melendez is the person who shot him in the leg. “[T]he record of conviction the parties may consult at the prima facie stage includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea.” (Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 568, citing People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 223 .) “[R]esolution of the prima facie inquiry in [Melendez’s] case did not call for resolution of a factual dispute . . . .

2022(Johnson, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 168 .) For trials predating Johnson, reviewing courts must independently conduct the prima facie inquiry.

2021(Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 [ 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ]; People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 541 .) 6 The remainder of voir dire is not included in the record on appeal, so it is unclear how many total peremptory challenges the prosecutor used, or upon whom he exercised them to excuse. 8 “ ‘Though proof of a prima facie case may be made from any information in the record available to the trial court,’ ” our Supreme Court has found certain types of evidence particularly relevant during a prima facie inquiry.

2016(In re Jamika W. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1446 , 1450–1451; In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 592-594 .)The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.(Id. at p. 594.) A ruling on a section 388 petition is “committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuseofdiscretion is clearly established.” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 .) “Thus, we may not reverse unless the juv

2005(Rule 1432(b), (c); In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309-310 , 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 544 , 851 P.2d 826 .) "[I]f the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition. [Citations.] The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition." ( In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 , 92 Cal.Rptr