Torres claim in California

2022(Torres, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 1083.) 9 modify the sentence.” (Torres, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 1084.) Among those exceptions, the court cited one for “[u]nauthorized sentences and ‘ “ ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings,’ ” ’ ” which “are correctable at any time.” (Id. at p. 1085, citing People v. Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1205 [“an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time”]; People v. Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 338 [trial court would have had juri

2020(Ibid.; see People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 338 .) Torres’s claim under Dueñas, which is based upon factual arguments concerning his ability to pay, does not fall within any of these exceptions.

2022(Torres, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 1083.) 9 modify the sentence.” (Torres, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 1084.) Among those exceptions, the court cited one for “[u]nauthorized sentences and ‘ “ ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings,’ ” ’ ” which “are correctable at any time.” (Id. at p. 1085, citing People v. Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1205 [“an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time”]; People v. Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 338 [trial court would have had juri

2020(See Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1205–1206.) Torres does not contend otherwise.

2025(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) Because the record is insufficient for us to determine whether Torres proceeded at trial on a joint employer theory, Torres has not satisfied her burden on appeal. 12 In sum, for all of the reasons set forth above, we reject Torres’s challenge to the jury’s verdict on her cause of action for unpaid overtime compensation.

2025(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 [where a defendant’s attorney finds no arguable issues in an appeal from the denial of a petition for resentencing and the defendant files a supplemental brief, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion,” but the question of whether to conduct an independent review of the entire record is “wholly within the court’s discretion”].) Torres contends that he cannot be ineligible for resentencing because he was not charged with use of a weapon or assault likely to cause great bod

2025(See People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 98 [instructional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where “ ‘the factual question posed by the omitted instruction was necessarily resolved adversely to the defendant under other, properly given instructions’ ”].) Moreover, even if the jury had potentially relied on the implied-malice portion of former CALCRIM No. 520, the omission of the “high degree of probability of death” language was patently harmless in light of the evidence at trial.

2025That is incorrect: Errors in calculating presentence credits are “subject to correction whenever brought to the attention of a court that has jurisdiction.” (People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56 , 66; see also People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8 .) The Attorney General also points out that, if this case is remanded for full resentencing, the trial court will be required to recalculate the credits afforded to Torres.

2025The concept’s statutory definition, “a killing by one with an ‘abandoned and malignant heart’ [citation], is far from clear in its meaning.” (People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 151 (Knoller).) To emphasize that the appropriate focus is “on a defendant’s awareness of the risk created by [the defendant’s] behavior,” not the defendant’s character, “ ‘[t]wo lines of decisions developed . . . attempt[ing] “to translate this amorphous anatomical characterization of implied malice into a tangible standard a jury can apply.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 151–152.) Under the first line, based on Justice Trayno

2025The concept’s statutory definition, “a killing by one with an ‘abandoned and malignant heart’ [citation], is far from clear in its meaning.” (People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 151 (Knoller).) To emphasize that the appropriate focus is “on a defendant’s awareness of the risk created by [the defendant’s] behavior,” not the defendant’s character, “ ‘[t]wo lines of decisions developed . . . attempt[ing] “to translate this amorphous anatomical characterization of implied malice into a tangible standard a jury can apply.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 151–152.) Under the first line, based on Justice Trayno

2025The concept’s statutory definition, “a killing by one with an ‘abandoned and malignant heart’ [citation], is far from clear in its meaning.” (People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 151 (Knoller).) To emphasize that the appropriate focus is “on a defendant’s awareness of the risk created by [the defendant’s] behavior,” not the defendant’s character, “ ‘[t]wo lines of decisions developed . . . attempt[ing] “to translate this amorphous anatomical characterization of implied malice into a tangible standard a jury can apply.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 151–152.) Under the first line, based on Justice Trayno

2024(See Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 [“‘Where a party by his conduct induces the commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal’ on appeal.”]; Burch v. CertainTeed Corp. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 341 , 350 & fn. 6 [invited error applied where the parties jointly requested the CACI pattern jury instructions]; Stevens v. Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corp., supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1653 [“The doctrine of invited error bars an appellant from attacking a verdict that resulted from a jury instruction given at the appellant’s request.”].) Torres’s challenge

2024(See Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 [“‘Where a party by his conduct induces the commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal’ on appeal.”]; Burch v. CertainTeed Corp. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 341 , 350 & fn. 6 [invited error applied where the parties jointly requested the CACI pattern jury instructions]; Stevens v. Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corp., supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1653 [“The doctrine of invited error bars an appellant from attacking a verdict that resulted from a jury instruction given at the appellant’s request.”].) Torres’s challenge

2022We do not understand Torres’s argument on appeal regarding the prejudice resulting from the purportedly erroneous admission of Dr. Carmichael’s testimony to include a separate claim that the prosecutor committed error when discussing the CSAAS evidence in her closing arguments. 12 In her briefing, Torres also joins Garcia’s argument on this claim. 22 Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1045 ; see also People v. Sanchez (2011) 63 Cal.4th 665 , 676–677.) On the other hand, it is improper for an expert to testify about CSAAS in a manner that directly coincides with the facts of the case.

2021(Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 296, fn. 7 [“Issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed waived or abandoned.”]; Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 63 [argument made for the first time in reply brief is forfeited].) 16 Torres’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy based on Labor Code section 132a also failed because Torres did not submit a workers’ compensation claim with Kaiser.

2021(Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 296, fn. 7 [“Issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed waived or abandoned.”]; Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 63 [argument made for the first time in reply brief is forfeited].) 16 Torres’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy based on Labor Code section 132a also failed because Torres did not submit a workers’ compensation claim with Kaiser.

2021(Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 296, fn. 7 [“Issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed waived or abandoned.”]; Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 63 [argument made for the first time in reply brief is forfeited].) 16 Torres’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy based on Labor Code section 132a also failed because Torres did not submit a workers’ compensation claim with Kaiser.

2021(Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 296, fn. 7 [“Issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed waived or abandoned.”]; Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 63 [argument made for the first time in reply brief is forfeited].) 16 Torres’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy based on Labor Code section 132a also failed because Torres did not submit a workers’ compensation claim with Kaiser.

2020In assessing Torres’s claim of instructional error, we apply a de novo standard of review.7 (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) The standard jury instruction given by the trial court is modeled after section 1111, which states in relevant part as follows: “A conviction can not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense ….” (§ 1111.) An accomplice is “one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause