absence of the alleged error in California

2024He further asserts that under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson), “[i]f there was only a violation of state law,” it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to him would have been reached in the absence of the alleged error.

2023(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different in the absence of the alleged error]; see also Bowker, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 395 [improper admission of expert’s CSAAS testimony that went beyond rehabilitating the complaining witness’s credibility was harmless].)5 II.

2026(Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 [ineffective assistance claim can be rejected on appeal without addressing the alleged deficiency in counsel’s performance if it is clear the same result is reasonably probable in the absence of the alleged error].) DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

2016(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) In order to establish prejudice under the Strickland standard, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a different result would have occurred in the absence of the alleged error.

2023(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different in the absence of the alleged error]; see also Bowker, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 395 [improper admission of expert’s CSAAS testimony that went beyond rehabilitating the complaining witness’s credibility was harmless].)5 II.

2021(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 (Watson) [no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different in the absence of the alleged error].) C.

2021(See People v. Preyer (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 568, 573 [“‘An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge’”].) In any event, we find there is no reasonable probability of a different outcome in the absence of the alleged error.

2021(See People v. Preyer (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 568, 573 [“‘An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge’”].) In any event, we find there is no reasonable probability of a different outcome in the absence of the alleged error.

2024(People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 924 .) The Watson standard asks whether it is "reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the alleged error." (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 356 .) When applying the Watson standard, "an appellate court may consider, among other things, whether the evidence supporting the existing judgment is so relatively strong, and the evidence supporting a different outcome is so comparatively weak, that there is no reasonable probability the error of which the defendant complains affected the

2015(Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 ; People v. Pham (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 61, 68 .) In any event, it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have resulted in the absence of the alleged error. ( Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 165, 178; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) Even if the jury had been instructed on simple kidnapping, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence was that a completed carjacking took place, and defendant kidnapped B. in order to accomplish it.

2024(People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 924 .) The Watson standard asks whether it is "reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the alleged error." (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 356 .) When applying the Watson standard, "an appellate court may consider, among other things, whether the evidence supporting the existing judgment is so relatively strong, and the evidence supporting a different outcome is so comparatively weak, that there is no reasonable probability the error of which the defendant complains affected the

2015(People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 602 .) If character evidence is erroneously admitted, the defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been 19. reached in the absence of the alleged error.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 356 , citing People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) C.

2023(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different in the absence of the alleged error]; see also Bowker, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 395 [improper admission of expert’s CSAAS testimony that went beyond rehabilitating the complaining witness’s credibility was harmless].)5 II.

2023(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different in the absence of the alleged error]; see also Bowker, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 395 [improper admission of expert’s CSAAS testimony that went beyond rehabilitating the complaining witness’s credibility was harmless].)5 II.

2021(People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 830-831 [failure to give pinpoint instruction reviewed for prejudice under People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818 ].) 15 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2021(See People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 131 [erroneous exclusion of evidence reviewed for prejudice under state law standard articulated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 ]; People v. McNeal (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1183, 1203 [same].) Murphy has not identified any evidence that he was precluded from introducing at the section 1170.95, subdivision (d) hearing, nor has he suggested the existence of any evidence that he would offer at such a hearing on remand.

2021(See People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 131 [erroneous exclusion of evidence reviewed for prejudice under state law standard articulated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 ]; People v. McNeal (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1183, 1203 [same].) Murphy has not identified any evidence that he was precluded from introducing at the section 1170.95, subdivision (d) hearing, nor has he suggested the existence of any evidence that he would offer at such a hearing on remand.

2021Code, § 354, subd (a) [judgment or decision shall not be reversed for erroneous exclusion of evidence unless the “substance, purpose, and relevance of the excluded evidence was made known to the court by . . . an offer of proof, or by any other means”]; People v. Johnson (2018) 6 Cal.5th 541, 571 [defendant forfeited any claim about purported exclusion of evidence by “failing to offer it in evidence below”].) Even assuming the claim was preserved, 20 Murphy has not shown it is reasonably probable that the trial court would have reached a different result in the absence of the alleged error.

2016(See People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 247 [noting the standard announced in Watson, supra, 46 Cal.3d at page 836 applies to erroneous admission of expert testimony].) D.

2015(Williams v. Taylor (2000) 529 U.S. 362, 391, 394 .) Jones relies principally on two cases for the proposition that counsel had an absolute duty to file a motion to withdraw the plea.

2015(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 ; see People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 206 .) In order to demonstrate prejudice, an appellant must show a reasonable likelihood that a different outcome would have occurred in the absence of the alleged error.