admission violation in California

2026“However, we do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error) but examine the record, appellant’s brief, and any oral argument by appellant to see if it supports any claims of error made by the appellant.” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 .) 5 circumstances of the parties.

2025Proskauer filed a respondent’s brief on its own behalf, but no respondent’s brief was filed on behalf of Gold. “[W]e do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error) but examine the record, appellant’s brief, and any oral argument by appellant to see if it supports any claims of error . . . .” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 .) 2 the defendants—only an allegation that “[d]efendants, and each of them, entered into and/or maintained an agreement for employment with Plaintiff to handle Human Resources duties at [

2026(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 .) “[The appellant’s] burden remains the same whether or not the respondent files a brief or provides argument or authority on an issue.” (Doe v. McLaughlin (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 640 , 655; In re Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1342, fn. 1 [the failure to file a respondent’s brief is not an admission of error].) David did not file a respondent’s brief, and Teletha requested argument only if a tentative opinion issues.

2026(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 .) “[The appellant’s] burden remains the same whether or not the respondent files a brief or provides argument or authority on an issue.” (Doe v. McLaughlin (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 640 , 655; In re Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1342, fn. 1 [the failure to file a respondent’s brief is not an admission of error].) David did not file a respondent’s brief, and Teletha requested argument only if a tentative opinion issues.

2026That statute provides: ‘No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.’ ”

2026That statute provides: ‘No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.’ ”

2025(In re Bryce C. (1995) 12 Cal.4th 226, 232 ; In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 [“we do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error)”].) Instead, we consider the appellant’s brief, independently examine the record on appeal, and reverse only if prejudicial error is found.

2025(In re Bryce C. (1995) 12 Cal.4th 226, 232 ; In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 [“we do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error)”].) Instead, we consider the appellant’s brief, independently examine the record on appeal, and reverse only if prejudicial error is found.

2026That statute provides: ‘No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.’ ”

2020That statute provides: ‘No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.’”

2026“However, we do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error) but independently examine the record and reverse only if prejudicial error is found.” (Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1203 .) 9 11 inadequate record citations in her appellate brief.

2025Her failure to do so, however, is not treated as a “default” or “an admission of error.” (Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1203 .) Rather, if the respondent does not file a respondent’s brief, “the court may decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) 1 February 11, 2025, we asked Villanueva to submit supplemental briefing addressing whether the appeal is moot.

2026That statute provides: ‘No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.’ ”

2025In addition to the requirement to properly file a notice of appeal, section 1237.5 provides: “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certifi

2013Generally, to appeal from a guilty plea, section 1237.5 requires the defendant to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court.4 Section 1237.5 “relates to the 4 Section 1237.5 reads: “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or 3 proc

2013Generally, to appeal from a guilty plea, section 1237.5 requires the defendant to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court.4 Section 1237.5 “relates to the 4 Section 1237.5 reads: “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or 3 proc

1989(People v. DeVaughn, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 896, fn. 6 ; People v. Superior Court (Zolnay) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 729, 733-734 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 798 , 542 P.2d 1390 ].) 10 Section 1237.5 provided at all relevant times, including the date when Joseph B. became final: “No appeal shall be taken by defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where: [j]] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional

1981(People v. Berkeley, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 460 .) It is based upon the language of section 1531, which states: “The officer may break open any outer or inner door ... if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance." (Italics added.) Penal Code section 1237.5 provides: “No appeal shall be taken by defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where: [IT] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of p

2014(Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1077-1078 [ 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 135 ].) “Flowever, we do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error), but examine the record, appellant’s brief, and any oral argument by appellant to see if it supports any claims of error made by the appellant.” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 273 ]; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) 2 Under the schedule, Father would pick up the children from school each Friday afternoon and, on alternating weekends, would

2014(Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1077-1078 [ 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 135 ].) “Flowever, we do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error), but examine the record, appellant’s brief, and any oral argument by appellant to see if it supports any claims of error made by the appellant.” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 273 ]; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) 2 Under the schedule, Father would pick up the children from school each Friday afternoon and, on alternating weekends, would

2026We therefore “decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant[s].” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) “We do not consider the failure to file a respondent’s brief as an admission of error.” (County of San Diego Dept. of Child Support Services v. C.P. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1, 7, fn. 7 .) 7.

2020“Where, as here, there is no respondent’s brief, we ‘decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.’ [Citation.] We do not consider the failure to file a respondent’s brief . . . an admission of error.” (County of San Diego Dept. of Child Support Services v. C.P. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1, 7, fn. 7 .) 2 that she was contributing to a shared asset, i.e., the residence.

2024(Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014 , 1072; Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9 .) “[W]e do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error) but examine the record, appellant’s brief, and any oral argument by appellant to see if it supports any claims of error.” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 .) Johnson argues there is insufficient evidence to suggest she engaged in violent behavior toward Winzer, which is one of the three types of behavior

2024(Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014 , 1072; Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9 .) “[W]e do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of error) but examine the record, appellant’s brief, and any oral argument by appellant to see if it supports any claims of error.” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1 .) Johnson argues there is insufficient evidence to suggest that she engaged in violent behavior toward Todd, which is one of three types of behavior d

2021Franzen stated: “According to the drafters of the Evidence Code, section 1340 merely ‘codifie[d] an exception’ to the hearsay rule ‘that ha[d] been recognized by statute and by the courts in specific situations.’ [Citations.] They cited three authorities illustrating statements within the exception: California Uniform Commercial Code section 2724, which authorizes proof of a commodity’s market price by ‘reports in official publications or trade journals or in newspapers or periodicals of general circulation published as the reports of such market’; Emery v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1946) 72 Cal.

2012Rep. (1963) p. 338 [uniform rule on which § 1340 was ultimately based “ha[d] no counterpart in the California statutes,” but there were “some indication in judicial decisions that this exception m[ight] exist in California”].) They cited three authorities illustrating statements within the exception: California Uniform Commercial Code section 2724, which authorizes proof of a commodity’s market price by “reports in official publications or trade journals or in newspapers or periodicals of general circulation published as the reports of such market”; Emery v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1946) 72 Cal

2021Franzen stated: “According to the drafters of the Evidence Code, section 1340 merely ‘codifie[d] an exception’ to the hearsay rule ‘that ha[d] been recognized by statute and by the courts in specific situations.’ [Citations.] They cited three authorities illustrating statements within the exception: California Uniform Commercial Code section 2724, which authorizes proof of a commodity’s market price by ‘reports in official publications or trade journals or in newspapers or periodicals of general circulation published as the reports of such market’; Emery v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1946) 72 Cal.

2012Rep. (1963) p. 338 [uniform rule on which § 1340 was ultimately based “ha[d] no counterpart in the California statutes,” but there were “some indication in judicial decisions that this exception m[ight] exist in California”].) They cited three authorities illustrating statements within the exception: California Uniform Commercial Code section 2724, which authorizes proof of a commodity’s market price by “reports in official publications or trade journals or in newspapers or periodicals of general circulation published as the reports of such market”; Emery v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1946) 72 Cal

2021(Becerra, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 188 ; accord, Espinoza, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 803 .) This determination informs whether defendant’s challenge is an attack on the validity of his plea agreement, necessitating a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5. ( Becerra, supra, at p. 188 ; Espinoza, supra, at p. 803 .) “‘A negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, and it is interpreted according to general contract principles. [Citations.]’ (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767 (Shelton).) Likewise, ‘[b]ecause waivers of appellate rights are ordinarily found in the

2019Certificate of Probable Cause “The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159 ; accord, People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 958 ; People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 881 .) “In general, [however,] a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction, unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) .…) Section 1237.5, which is at issue here, provides in full: ‘No app

2019Certificate of Probable Cause “The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159 ; accord, People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 958 ; People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 881 .) “In general, [however,] a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction, unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) .…) Section 1237.5, which is at issue here, provides in full: ‘No app

2012Discussion In general, a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction, unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. *299 Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) (hereafter rule 8.304(b)).) Section 1237.5, which is at issue here, provides in full: “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [f] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or

1998Penal Code section 1237.5 provides that "[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the cou

1998Penal Code section 1237.5 provides that "[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the cou

2023(People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36, 42 .) Delgado’s remedy for the trial court’s denial of the certificate of probable cause was to file a petition for writ relief. “[W]here, as here, a certificate of probable cause has been denied, the appeal is not operative and the denial of the certificate must be reviewed by writ of mandate. . . . [¶] . . . ‘When an appellate court considers an appeal on its merits in spite of the appellant’s noncompliance with section 1237.5 and rule 31(d), it arrogates to itself the screening which should have taken place at the county level.’ ” (People v. Cas

2020“Because defendant’s ‘essential attack is on the validity of his plea, he is subject to . . . section 1237.5 even if he raises the question after the plea, by the vehicle 4 Section 1237.5 provides: “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: “(a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grou

2019Certificate of Probable Cause “The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159 ; accord, People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 958 ; People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 881 .) “In general, [however,] a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction, unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) .…) Section 1237.5, which is at issue here, provides in full: ‘No app

2013(People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 887 (Totari).) To appeal from a guilty plea, however, section 1237.5 requires the defendant obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court.5 Section 1237.5 “relates to the procedure 5 Section 1237.5 states, “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of 4 in p

2019To the contrary, the Department (as appellant) has the burden of establishing reversible error, and we review the Department's presentation-here, an opening brief, a clerk's transcript, and a reporter's transcript-and determine whether the Department met its burden. ( Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413 , 419, fn. 2, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 .) Actually, section 4007.5, subdivision (f) provides that section 4007.5 applies to child support orders issued or modified "on or after the enactment of this section." In this regard, the Legislature filed the bill with the Secretary of State on Octob

2019To the contrary, the Department (as appellant) has the burden of establishing reversible error, and we review the Department's presentation-here, an opening brief, a clerk's transcript, and a reporter's transcript-and determine whether the Department met its burden. ( Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413 , 419, fn. 2, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 .) Actually, section 4007.5, subdivision (f) provides that section 4007.5 applies to child support orders issued or modified "on or after the enactment of this section." In this regard, the Legislature filed the bill with the Secretary of State on Octob

2019Certificate of Probable Cause “The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159 ; accord, People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 958 ; People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 881 .) “In general, [however,] a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction, unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) .…) Section 1237.5, which is at issue here, provides in full: ‘No app

2019Certificate of Probable Cause “The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159 ; accord, People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 958 ; People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 881 .) “In general, [however,] a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction, unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) .…) Section 1237.5, which is at issue here, provides in full: ‘No app

2019Certificate of Probable Cause “The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159 ; accord, People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 958 ; People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 881 .) “In general, [however,] a defendant may appeal from a final judgment of conviction, unless otherwise limited by sections 1237.1 and 1237.5. (§ 1237; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) .…) Section 1237.5, which is at issue here, provides in full: ‘No app

2016Section 1237.5 provides in part that "[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk

2002“Exclusion of PAS test results in every drunk driving case involving an Aleo Sensor IV will deter intentional reliance upon a flawed system that, despite the best intentions and sincere efforts of the vast majority of members of the [CHP], will continue to deliver untrustworthy test results in every drunk driving case until it is appropriately corrected. . . . [T]he [CHP] will be able to produce . . . scientifically valid evidence once it brings its training and maintenance program into compliance with Title 17.” The Court of Appeal nevertheless affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding the adm

2002“Exclusion of PAS test results in every drunk driving case involving an Aleo Sensor IV will deter intentional reliance upon a flawed system that, despite the best intentions and sincere efforts of the vast majority of members of the [CHP], will continue to deliver untrustworthy test results in every drunk driving case until it is appropriately corrected. . . . [T]he [CHP] will be able to produce . . . scientifically valid evidence once it brings its training and maintenance program into compliance with Title 17.” The Court of Appeal nevertheless affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding the adm

2013(People v. Malabag (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1422-1423 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 847 ].) However, in Malabag , there was specific evidence that the reporter’s transcript was incomplete—the transcript began in the middle of the proceedings and contained only sentencing orders.

2013(People v. Malabag (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1422-1423 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 847 ].) However, in Malabag , there was specific evidence that the reporter’s transcript was incomplete—the transcript began in the middle of the proceedings and contained only sentencing orders.

2013“As a general rule, a record that is in conflict will be harmonized if possible. [Citation.] If it cannot be harmonized, whether one portion of the record should prevail as against contrary statements in another portion of the record will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.” (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 226 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 224 , 106 P.3d 895 ].) When adequate, the clerk’s minutes can be relied upon to establish an admission and a waiver of constitutional rights even where the reporter’s transcript is silent on the subject.

2013“As a general rule, a record that is in conflict will be harmonized if possible. [Citation.] If it cannot be harmonized, whether one portion of the record should prevail as against contrary statements in another portion of the record will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.” (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 226 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 224 , 106 P.3d 895 ].) When adequate, the clerk’s minutes can be relied upon to establish an admission and a waiver of constitutional rights even where the reporter’s transcript is silent on the subject.