failure to request instruction in California

2020(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 ; People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 428 [no need for the reviewing court to determine whether the failure to request a pinpoint instruction was deficient because, even if it was, the failure to request the instruction did not prejudice defendant].) To establish prejudice, “[i]t is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’ ” (Richter, supra, 562 U.S. at p. 104 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counse

2015(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 .) Here, “[w]e need not determine whether the failure to request [a pinpoint] instruction was deficient because, even if it was, the failure to request the instruction did not prejudice defendant.” (People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 428 .) Ignoring the overwhelming evidence of deliberation and premeditation, defendant focuses on the claimed inadequacies of the instructions as support of his contention that that evidence solely on the issue of whether the perpetrator killed with or without deliberation and premeditation.” 24 he was prejudiced

2015(People v. Hernandez (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1333 ; People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 880 [discussing CALJIC No. 873’s provocation instruction].) In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel from the failure to request this instruction, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the failure to request this instruction, the outcome would have been different.

2015(People v. Hernandez (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1333 ; People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 880 [discussing CALJIC No. 873’s provocation instruction].) In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel from the failure to request this instruction, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the failure to request this instruction, the outcome would have been different.

2024(See Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) Neither the failure to object to the challenged condition of probation imposed in this case, nor the failure to request a hearing to consider defendant’s ability to pay fines, fees, and assessments, constitutes reversible error.

2024(See, e.g., People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1057.) 1 While defendant does not cite People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 , his argument that the failure to request a hearing on the ability to pay constituted ineffective assistance of counsel suggests there was a constitutional duty owed.

2024(See, e.g., People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1057.) 1 While defendant does not cite People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 , his argument that the failure to request a hearing on the ability to pay constituted ineffective assistance of counsel suggests there was a constitutional duty owed.

2020(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 ; People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 428 [no need for the reviewing court to determine whether the failure to request a pinpoint instruction was deficient because, even if it was, the failure to request the instruction did not prejudice defendant].) To establish prejudice, “[i]t is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’ ” (Richter, supra, 562 U.S. at p. 104 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counse

2020(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 ; People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 428 [no need for the reviewing court to determine whether the failure to request a pinpoint instruction was deficient because, even if it was, the failure to request the instruction did not prejudice defendant].) To establish prejudice, “[i]t is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’ ” (Richter, supra, 562 U.S. at p. 104 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counse

2020(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 ; People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 428 [no need for the reviewing court to determine whether the failure to request a pinpoint instruction was deficient because, even if it was, the failure to request the instruction did not prejudice defendant].) To establish prejudice, “[i]t is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’ ” (Richter, supra, 562 U.S. at p. 104 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counse

2020(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 ; People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 428 [no need for the reviewing court to determine whether the failure to request a pinpoint instruction was deficient because, even if it was, the failure to request the instruction did not prejudice defendant].) To establish prejudice, “[i]t is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’ ” (Richter, supra, 562 U.S. at p. 104 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counse

2020(Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1009 .) Moreover, even if counsel’s failure to request the instruction constituted representation falling below an objective standard of reasonableness for professional representation, it also cannot be determined on this record whether the result would have been more favorable to Hughley if counsel had asked for a limiting instruction.

2020(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 ; People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 428 [no need for the reviewing court to determine whether the failure to request a pinpoint instruction was deficient because, even if it was, the failure to request the instruction did not prejudice defendant].) To establish prejudice, “[i]t is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’ ” (Richter, supra, 562 U.S. at p. 104 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counse

2018Although the court had the authority to conduct an inquiry had it believed one was warranted (see NBC Subsidiary , supra , 20 Cal.4th at p. 1224, fn. 50, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778 , 980 P.2d 337 ), it did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold one.

2018Although the court had the authority to conduct an inquiry had it believed one was warranted (see NBC Subsidiary , supra , 20 Cal.4th at p. 1224, fn. 50, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778 , 980 P.2d 337 ), it did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold one.

2015Thus, the failure to request the instruction either as a defense to the oral copulation of a person under the age of 18 or an intoxicated person was not ineffective assistance because there was no substantial evidence to support the instruction. 17 Moreover, defendant has also failed to overcome the strong presumption that, “under the circumstances, [his counsel’s] challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 689 .) “A reviewing court will not second-guess trial counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions. [Citation.]” (People v. Kel

2015Theft by larceny “requires the taking of another’s property, with the intent to steal and carry it away.” (People v. Gomez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 249, 254-255 .) Indeed, 3Defendant further argues in the alternative that the failure to request the instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. 10.

2013(People v. Garcia (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 814, 823 , citing People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 618-619 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1126 .) Trial counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction could not have been prejudicial.

2013(People v. Garcia (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 814, 823 , citing People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 618-619 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1126 .) Trial counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction could not have been prejudicial.

2013(People v. Garcia (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 814, 823 , citing People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 618-619 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1126 .) Trial counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction could not have been prejudicial.

1988On January 27, 1987, 84 days after the filing of the petition, appellants filed a pleading entitled “Request For Hearing.” The full text of the request is as follows: “TO: THE SUPERIOR COURT AND TO EACH PARTY HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-named petitioners hereby request a hearing in this matter, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21167.4.” On February 17, 1987, this division filed its decision in San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d 498 (hereinafter SFRG) in which we held that a failure to request a hearing within the ti

1988Even assuming arguendo that such subjective knowledge is legally required, the normal rule is that “a defendant’s failure to request instruction on the elements of the other-crimes aggravating evidence will preclude him from raising the issue on appeal.” (People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 282 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 794 , 710 P.2d 861 ].) Defendant is unpersuasive in arguing that he should be excepted from this general rule. 10 With some prescience (see People v. Allen, supra, 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1276-1277 ; People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd.

1988California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]), the prosecutor explained to the jury: “It is not a question of simply counting up the numbers of factors on one side and placing them against the number of factors on the other side.

1988California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]), the prosecutor explained to the jury: “It is not a question of simply counting up the numbers of factors on one side and placing them against the number of factors on the other side.

1985(Ibid; cf. People v. Robertson, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 53 .) Normally, a defendant’s failure to request instruction on the elements of the other-crimes aggravating evidence will preclude him from raising the issue on appeal (People v. Phillips, supra, ante, at p. 72, fn. 25) and appellant’s claim is thus not properly before us.