should consider factors in California

2018Even if the elements of res judicata are met, the California Supreme Court has held " 'when the issue is a question of law rather than of fact, the prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that relitigation not be foreclosed.' " ( City of Sacramento v. State of California (1990) 50 Cal.3d 51 , 64, 266 Cal.Rptr. 139 , 785 P.2d 522 .) But in this instance, appellants are not asserting a question of law regarding statutory interpretation.

2018Even if the elements of res judicata are met, the California Supreme Court has held " 'when the issue is a question of law rather than of fact, the prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that relitigation not be foreclosed.' " ( City of Sacramento v. State of California (1990) 50 Cal.3d 51 , 64, 266 Cal.Rptr. 139 , 785 P.2d 522 .) But in this instance, appellants are not asserting a question of law regarding statutory interpretation.

2016(People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1205 ; Clark, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 99-100 ["eve of trial" self-representation request was within the court's discretion to deny]; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 852-853 [Faretta request was clearly directed to the trial court's discretion where the case had been called for trial, both counsel had answered ready, and defendant asserted he needed unspecified period for preparation]; People v. Moore (1988) 47 Cal.3d 63, 80-81 [Faretta motion on the day trial was set to begin would be well within the court's discretion to deny even though the

2014(People v. Scott (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1206 ; see People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 828 [“[a]though in denying defendant’s Faretta motion the trial court relied heavily on the absence of any showing counsel was incompetent, the record reflects its explicit or implicit consideration of each of the other . . . factors”].) “‘[A] reviewing court must give “considerable weight” to the court’s exercise of discretion and must examine the total (9th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 552, 555 ), “‘before meaningful trial proceedings have commenced’” and “on the morning of trial” (Fritz v. Spalding (9th

2015Unfortunately, this information is not in the record. 5 Intervening Circumstances Warranted Probation Search In determining whether the taint of an illegal traffic stop has been sufficiently attenuated by an intervening circumstance to render the evidence seized in the stop admissible, the court should consider the factors set forth in Brown, supra, 422 U.S. 590 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ]. ( Brendlin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269.) These factors include (1) the “temporal proximity of the Fourth Amendment violation to the procurement of the challenged evidence,” (2) “the presence of intervening cir

2015Unfortunately, this information is not in the record. 5 Intervening Circumstances Warranted Probation Search In determining whether the taint of an illegal traffic stop has been sufficiently attenuated by an intervening circumstance to render the evidence seized in the stop admissible, the court should consider the factors set forth in Brown, supra, 422 U.S. 590 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ]. ( Brendlin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269.) These factors include (1) the “temporal proximity of the Fourth Amendment violation to the procurement of the challenged evidence,” (2) “the presence of intervening cir

2015(People v. Dent (2003) 30 Cal.4th 213, 218 .) Rodriguez argues that his Faretta motion was knowing and intelligent, unequivocal, and timely.

2015(People v. Dent (2003) 30 Cal.4th 213, 218 .) C.

2015Unfortunately, this information is not in the record. 5 Intervening Circumstances Warranted Probation Search In determining whether the taint of an illegal traffic stop has been sufficiently attenuated by an intervening circumstance to render the evidence seized in the stop admissible, the court should consider the factors set forth in Brown, supra, 422 U.S. 590 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ]. ( Brendlin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269.) These factors include (1) the “temporal proximity of the Fourth Amendment violation to the procurement of the challenged evidence,” (2) “the presence of intervening cir

2014Unfortunately, this information is not in the record. 5 Intervening Circumstances Warranted Probation Search In determining whether the taint of an illegal traffic stop has been sufficiently attenuated by an intervening circumstance to render the evidence seized in the stop admissible, the court should consider the factors set forth in Brown, supra, 422 U.S. 590 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ]. ( Brendlin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269.) These factors include (1) the “temporal proximity of the Fourth Amendment violation to the procurement of the challenged evidence,” (2) “the presence of intervening cir

2024(People v. Withers (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 58, 60 [whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively is a question addressed to the judgment of the court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion].) Under section 669, a trial court has discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences for multiple convictions of indeterminate terms. (§ 669, subd. (a); People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1025 ; People v. Rodriguez (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1262 .) In exercising its discretion whether to impose concurrent or con

2024(People v. Withers (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 58, 60 [whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively is a question addressed to the judgment of the court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion].) Under section 669, a trial court has discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences for multiple convictions of indeterminate terms. (§ 669, subd. (a); People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1025 ; People v. Rodriguez (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1262 .) In exercising its discretion whether to impose concurrent or con

2023Practice Procedure (2023) § 4:21.) And, as noted, the California Supreme Court has indicated “ ‘[m]ere inconvenience or additional expense’ ” are not generally considered when considering enforcement of a contractual forum selection clause “ ‘since it may be assumed that the plaintiff received under the contract consideration for these things.’ ” (Smith, infra, 17 Cal.3d at 496 .) 26.

2023One court of appeal has said that a court should consider those factors ordinarily considered when determining a convenient forum: availability of evidence, the burden of trial in one place rather than another, the state’s interest in providing a forum to the parties, etc. [Lifeco Services Corp. v. Superior Court[, supra,] 222 Cal.App.3d 331 … (6th Dist. …)] However, another court of appeal has stated that such general factors of fairness should only be considered in the absence of a contractual choice of forum because to apply those factors would, in essence, require the court to re-write the

2021(People v. Green (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 165, 182 ; § 788.) When determining whether to admit a prior conviction, the court should consider the factors outlined in People v. Beagle, 2 Overruled on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 . 8 supra, 6 Cal.3d 441 : (1) whether the prior conviction reflects on the witness’s honesty or veracity; (2) whether the prior conviction is near or remote in time; (3) the similarity between the prior conviction and the charged offense; and (4) what effect admitting the prior conviction would have on the defendant’s decision to testify.

2021(People v. Green (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 165, 182 ; § 788.) When determining whether to admit a prior conviction, the court should consider the factors outlined in People v. Beagle, 2 Overruled on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 . 8 supra, 6 Cal.3d 441 : (1) whether the prior conviction reflects on the witness’s honesty or veracity; (2) whether the prior conviction is near or remote in time; (3) the similarity between the prior conviction and the charged offense; and (4) what effect admitting the prior conviction would have on the defendant’s decision to testify.

2021(See Cueto, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 560-561 [“While the trial court referred to a ‘reasonable person’ without including the phrase ‘in the same circumstances’ . . . the record as a whole demonstrates the trial court understood and applied the correct legal standard.”].) Here, Russell fails to show that the Superior Court did not apply the proper legal standard.

2021(People v. Green (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 165, 182 ; § 788.) When determining whether to admit a prior conviction, the court should consider the factors outlined in People v. Beagle, 2 Overruled on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 . 8 supra, 6 Cal.3d 441 : (1) whether the prior conviction reflects on the witness’s honesty or veracity; (2) whether the prior conviction is near or remote in time; (3) the similarity between the prior conviction and the charged offense; and (4) what effect admitting the prior conviction would have on the defendant’s decision to testify.

2021(People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 252 .) “ ‘A trial court must grant a defendant’s request for self-representation if the defendant knowingly and intelligently makes an unequivocal and timely request after having been apprised of its dangers.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 252–253.) “[A] Faretta[2] motion is timely if it is made ‘within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Johnson (2019) 8 Cal.5th 475 , 499.) If a Faretta motion is not timely, “self-representation no longer is a matter of right but is subject to the trial court’s discretion.” (Peo

2021(People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 722 (Edwards).) “These factors need not be rigidly followed” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 ) and no single factor is dispositive.

2021(People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 252 .) “ ‘A trial court must grant a defendant’s request for self-representation if the defendant knowingly and intelligently makes an unequivocal and timely request after having been apprised of its dangers.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 252–253.) “[A] Faretta[2] motion is timely if it is made ‘within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Johnson (2019) 8 Cal.5th 475 , 499.) If a Faretta motion is not timely, “self-representation no longer is a matter of right but is subject to the trial court’s discretion.” (Peo

2021(People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 252 .) “ ‘A trial court must grant a defendant’s request for self-representation if the defendant knowingly and intelligently makes an unequivocal and timely request after having been apprised of its dangers.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 252–253.) “[A] Faretta[2] motion is timely if it is made ‘within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Johnson (2019) 8 Cal.5th 475 , 499.) If a Faretta motion is not timely, “self-representation no longer is a matter of right but is subject to the trial court’s discretion.” (Peo

2021(People v. Green (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 165, 182 ; § 788.) When determining whether to admit a prior conviction, the court should consider the factors outlined in People v. Beagle, 2 Overruled on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 . 8 supra, 6 Cal.3d 441 : (1) whether the prior conviction reflects on the witness’s honesty or veracity; (2) whether the prior conviction is near or remote in time; (3) the similarity between the prior conviction and the charged offense; and (4) what effect admitting the prior conviction would have on the defendant’s decision to testify.